god-and-politics-september-october-1994 by Modern Reformation

e nonsense" "Horton's book is superb and timely." as Guinness, author of The A1nerican Hour

"A very pertinent message for today; one that I do not hear enunciated very dearly elsewhere." c. Everett Koop,

Former United States Surgeon General

"One of the strongest critiques of the church that I have read. A significant work at a very crucial time in the history of the church. If we digest this message then maybe all of society will benefit." John Perkins, Urban Family Magazine

"An important and impassioned plea. With the unsparing fervor of a true reformer, Horton points out that the evangelical churches are in no position to confront the world with its unbelief since there is so little interest in the substance of the apostolic faith within their own ranks. He paints an uncomfortable porÂ trait, but one that could ultiÂ mately lead to a genuine return to the Bible, that book so often invoked and so seldom lived." Edward Oaks, New York University

Available at your bookstore, or 1r 1-800-956-2644

-Mark Noll, Wheaton College

Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton

modern REFORMATION

Managing Editor Sara McReynolds

Writers

SEI;?TEMRER/ OCTORER 1994

Michael S. Horton Alan Maben Kim Riddlebarger Rick Ritchie

Design Shane Rosenthal

Contributing Scholars Dr. John Armstrong Dr. Steve M. Baugh Dr. James Boice Dr. D. A. Carson The Rev. Knox Chamblin D r. Bryan Chapell Dr. Daniel Doriani The Rev. J. Ligon Duncan Dr. Timothy George Dr. W . Robert Godfrey Dr. John Hannah Dr. Darryl G. Hart Dr. Carl F. H. Henry Dr. Robert Kolb Dr. A"en Mawhinney Dr. Joel Nederhood Dr. Roger Nicole Dr. Rod Rosenbladt Dr. Robert Preus Dr. R. C. Sproul Dr. Robert Strimple Dr. Wi" em A. VanGemeren Dr. David Wells

God & Politics

Inside this Issue

Page 2

In God's Name Guidelines for Proper Political Involvement Michael S. Horton

Page 3

The Church's Mission:

Great Commission or Great Society?

D. G. Hart

Page 9

Can Politics Save? Ken Jones

Page 14

A Tale of Two Kingdoms Michael}. Glodo

Page 17

In Your Face Talk Show Culture Invades the Church Allen Mawhinney

Page 21

Religion and Politics:

A Round table discussion

William Bennett, as Guiness, Michael S. Horton, Jim Wallis

Page 25

Christianity and Politics: How Shall the Twain Meet? Dan Bryant

Page 29

Faith and Law Society Fifteen Propositions Don E. Eberly

Page 32

CURE Board of Directors Douglas Abendroth John G. Beauman Cheryl mehl Robert den Dulk Dr. W. Robert Godfrey Richard Hermes M ichael S. Horton Dr. Robert Preus Dr. Luder Whitlock CHRISTIANS UNITED

for REFORMATION

© 1994 All rights reserved. is a non-profit educational foundation comm itted to communicating the insights of the 16th century Reformation to the 20th century church. For more information, call 714-956 2873, or write us at:

C URE

for REFORMATION 2221 East Winston Road Suite K Anaheim, CA 92806

CHRISTIANS UNITED

SUBSCRIBE TO

modern

REFORMATION 1-800-956-2644

SEPTEMBER! OCTOBER 1994

In A

Th is Issue

s we approach the November elections, we are more

r\. pointedly reminded that we are citizens ofearth as well as heaven. The Scriptures encourage us to make the most ofthat fact and excel in our calling as well as our citizenship. That means that we are to take our parenting (especially teaching children the great Christian truths) ., and our work in this world with utmost seriousness-not just politics. Modem life has reduced everything to politics. There is a politics 6f meaning, a politics of sex, a politics of art, and, of course, "politically correct thinking. " Where so many other streams used to stretch their fingers to the sea ofour human experience (art, science, reading, meaningful conversations, the institutions of family, school, and church) , so much oflife is now being reduced to one great, rushing river ofpolitical sentiment and ideology. It pervades the airwaves and shrinks life, transforming the real into the artificial. Evangelicals, according to the leading statistical studies, are virtually indistinguishable from non~ Christians in their beliefs, attitudes, world~ views, and behavior. If secularism is "makingman the measure, "as many Christian activists are wont to cite Protagoras, then the evangelical

SEPTEMBER! OcrOBER 1994

world is a co~ conspirator in the secularism of our society. To be sure, it is not yet seen in a capitulation to brazen relativism and a determination to wipe out any traces ofthe divine (except in the most radical "seeker~ sensitive" churches). But by saying that the real problems are in the world's institutions (the arts, the media, the schools, the government) , but not in the evangelical church itself, we end up saying the same thing as the world about sin: It's out there-I'm not responsible for it, it is just because So~ and~ So is in the White House, or it' s because we don't have the right people on the Supreme Court. Conveniently, we shift the blame like every other special interest group in this nation. But how do we, positively, exercise our divinely~ ordained citizenship in this world? In this issue, we will only scratch the surface of this important subject of the relationship between Christ and culture. But with experts such as Don Eberly, former White House aide and campaign manager, historian Darryl Hart, Old T estamentprofessor Michael OlexIo, and public policy adviser Dan Bryant, as well as our usual cast of writers, scratching the surface may at least get us well on our way to thinking more like Christians again.

modern REFORMATION

Michael S.Horton

In God's N arne

Guidelines for Proper Political I nvolvement

he early Christians, in spite of persecutions, were not hermits waiting in the comer to be caught away. In his Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, Justin carefully explained Christianity, trying to clear it of false impressions and charges. Instead of listing the Jewish persecutions of Christians (i. e., getting locked into a "culture war") , Justin has an eye to winning Trypho. To this effort at persuasion, Trypho replied,

This is what amazes me. Moreoever, I know that your teachings, written down in the so~called Gospel, are so wonderful and so great that in my opinion no man can keep them; for I have read them with interest. But this is what we cannot grasp at all: That you want to fear God and that you believe yourselves favored above the people around you, yet you do not withdraw from them in any way or separate yourselves from the pagans; that you observe neither festivals [pagan] or sabbaths []ew~ ish]; that you do not circumcise; and further, that you set your hopes on a man who was crucified, and believe you will receive good things from God in spite of the fact that you do not obey his commandments (10.1.2). Ifthe average person on the street today were asked, "What do you think Christianity is all about? ", would he or she be as clear and, might I add, doctrinal, as Trypho the Jew? Have we made a compelling case? Are the pagans even aware of what it is they are rejecting? What separates evangelicals from the culture today very often is not doctrine (since many evangelicals adhere to the same basic notions as the unchurched) , but style, extrabiblical codes of behavior, lingo, and in~ house spirituality. Yet, T ertullian backed up T rypho' s impressions of the early church' s non~ separatist attitude:

Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of mankind by country, speech, or customs. They do not live in cities of their own; they do not speak a special language; they do not follow a peculiar manner of life .. .They take part in everything as citizens and endure everything as aliens ...They have a common table, but not a common bed...They obey the established laws, but through their way of life they surpass these laws ... We are a united body. We are bound together by a common religious conviction, by one and the same divine disci~ pline and by the bond of common hope...We pray for the postponement of the end. We gather to bring to mind the contents of Holy Scripture as often as the world situa~ tion gives us a warning or reminder... " (Second Apology, 10).

Augustine offered this definition of his classic thesis:

I classify the human race into two branches: the one

consists of those who live by human standards, the other

of those who live according to God's will. ..By two cities

I mean two societies of human beings, one of which is

predestined to reign with God from all eternity, the other

doomed to undergo eternal punishment with the devil.

(Book xv,chapter 1)

The Reformation Despite much of the popular hagioraphy, Calvin was not a despot. In fact, even though he was trained in civil law and the best trained legal scholar in the region, he had less civil power than any of the other reformers, certainly less than Luther or Zwingli. Although he was, because of his background, employed by the city to create sanitation legislation, Calvin could never get his frequent celebration of the Lord's table through city hall his entire ministry. Calvin' s greatest concern was for the spiritual integrity of the church. With Augustine, he insisted that there were "many wolves within and many sheep without, " and that the church is always a mixed company of elect and non~ elect. Nevertheless, if the advance of the kingdom of God is in any way dependent on the secular arm, Calvin believed, there would be no way for those whom God had especially called and those who had been trained to preach, teach, and defend the faith against error to preserve the chuch from heresy and schism. He had no respect for the "contrived empire" of the medieval world known as "Christendom," although he saw the two kingdoms as mutually supportive of each other. No, the state must support the true religion, but the two kingdoms must be kept in their proper bounds, as each serves God through its distinct goals and means:

First, we must realize that we are under a twoJold government,

so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these

two, which have a completely different nature. But whoever

knows haw to distinguish between body and soul, between this

present fleeting life and that future etemallife, will without

difficulty know that Christ's spiritual kingdom and the civil

jurisdiction are things completely distinct. Yet this distinc~

tion does not lead us to consider the whole nature of

government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with

Christian men. That is what, indeed, certain fanatics who

delight in unbridled license shout and boast. But as we have

just now pointed out that this kind ofgovernment is distinct

from that spiritual and inward Kingdom of Christ, so we

must know that they are not at variance (Institutes 4.20.1 ~2)

SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 1994

In fact, like Augustine, Calvin had a very high view of the cultural capabilities of pagans. No single form of government is necessarily sanctioned by God, although Calvin himself prefers "an aristocracy bordering on democ~ racy"-a rather liberal view to hold in his day, and probably the reason why eminent historians such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. , note that Calvinism, with John Locke's Enlightenment twist on it, "laid the philosophical basis for the American experiment in democracy. " In many non~ Christian societies, magistrates look out for the poor, restrain the wickedness of those who would steal, kill, or vandalize, so it is not necessary to have a "Christian" nation in order to have justice, peace, and civil morality: I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence," writes Calvin, "if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some who deny that

acommonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish (4.10.14). After all,

It is a fact that the law ofGod which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony ofnatural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.. .Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit ofall laws. Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among our~ selves (4.20.16).

It is more difficult for us, living in our own time and place, to see how we have confused America and the kingdom of God and have used that confusion to casually invoke God's name in everything from the Strategic Defense Initiative to specific domestic policies.

Calvin emphasizes how es~ sential it is that Christians, whether rulers or the ruled, distinguish between the two kh'lgdoms and the limits of each, for the safety of bOth.

Hallowing God's Name In The Public Square There is no need to remind the reader of all of the cru ~ sadesthathavebeenlaunched by self~ confident humanity in an effort to champion a cause which, in retrospect, we can see to have been actually con~ trary to God's written, ex~ pressed will. Who among us today would argue that the Crusades in the middle ages, in which "Christendom" slaughtered Moslems and Jews in the name of God was not a misuse of that name? Would not even the most radically political Christian today recognize the error there in con~ fusing the Holy Roman Empire with the kingdom of God? And yet, it is more difficult for us, living in the middle of our own time and place, to see how we have confused

SEPTEMBER! OCTOBER 1994

America and the kingdom of God and have used that confusion to casually invoke God's name for everything from the Strategic Defense Initiative (S. D. 1.) to specific domestic policies. One could even detect among many ~, Christian groups a mentality in the Gulf War that had more ~ to do with Saddam Hussein being the Antichrist, and a "holy war" against Babylon, than with strategic or human rights violations. This, however, should come as no surprise, since the pundits of end~ times prophecy have been selecting nations and antichrists according to their relationship to America for some time. In fact, John Walvoord, whose book, Arabs, Oil, and the Middle East, sold nearly a million copies during the Gulf War crisis, had identified Vietnam as a key player in the rise of "Babylon" (China) in the 1970s, andanumberofbest~sellingbooks targeting Saddam and "Babylon" (Iraq) have since lost much of their steam. How many times must God's name be blasphemed among the Gentiles because of our folly? But does this mean that we can never appeal to God's name for support of particular positions in the political sphere? Not at all. n the last century, contrary to a long~ standing

position in the Dutch Reformed Church ( the majority church in South Africa) , white leaders began to argue that God was on the side of the Afrikaaner (the white South African) , as the victories over the British ( who had placed Afrikaaners in concentration camps) as well as over various African tribes, appeared to them to confirm. Much as the English had thought of themselves as Israel ( the Protestants) _ at war with Babylon (the Catholics) in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and just as the American colonists trusted in their "most favored nation" status with God against England, so white South Africans began to create their own myths, drawing upon biblical history and placing themselves in the position ofIsrael, the kingdom of God. Although there are as many black or colored ( mixed) Calvinists in South Africa as white, the Dutch Reformed decision~ making body declared in 1857 that it was acceptable for churches to be built on racial lines. As John de Gruchy has argued, this was chiefly a pragmatic missionary strategy , much like today's church growth idea of "homogeneous" churches, since, as church growth architect Donald McGavran stated, "People like to become Christians without having to cross cultural, linguistic, or racial barriers. "What began as a pragmatic idea in the churches was used by the politicians to create apartheid and the oppression of the blacks by the whites received official sanction from the churches across denominational lines , much as evangelicals in America at the same time remained silent during the civil rights movement here. That is why, when the church finally condemned apartheid, it did not condemn it as "racial injustice," or "misguided public policy, "nor "a violation of civil rights, " although it was all of those things; the church called it what only the church could call it: heresy. Since the political system was justified by Scripture~ twisting, the system could only be dismantled by naming the heresy. One wonders how many set~ backs to the progress of the Gospel and the kingdom of God have been due to the

modern REFORMATION

church's willingness to allow the two kingdoms to become merged in the interest of power and control. Are we Christians first or Americans first? Christians first or Afrikaaners first? Of course, the same confusions with lationalism can be found in a variety of cultures. Karl Barth, ~ Martin Niemoller , and other leaders ofthe Confessing Church ( so~ called because they believed that the church's greatest power against Hitler was not political, but a recovery of loyalty to the Gospel as expressed in the Reformation confessions) remind us again and again of the dangers of what the former cynically called the "healthy evangelical national piety" which lent its support to Hitler's nationalistic crusade. One can see the same confusion of the name of God and the names of things ("isms") among many African American Christians in America, where God is identified with every policy put forward by the NAACP. Instead of being one body with one message and one voice, we have become white evangelicals, black evangelicals, Hispanic evangelicals, evangelical feminists and anti~ feminists. We are a collection of competing special interest groups, not a church united in its proclamation of the kingdom of God and in its witness to the possibility of hope in the name of God and the new society he is building as a contradiction to the world's societies. It's a very serious business, this name ofGod. People were executed in the Old Testament, by divine command, for misusing it, and while God has not given the church in the New Testament the physical sword, he does promise that there will be many condemned by him on judgment day who really thought they were doing the Lord's work in the Lord's name. At this point, therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the legitimate use of God's name in politics. Once we have settled that God's name cannot be attached to the names of things ("isms") , we are ready to build a positive notion of political involvement. After all, the church does have a responsibility to call the nations of the world and their leaders to account, not only as individuals before God needing redemption, but as public servants of God who are meant to carry out justice. The following are some rules one might put forward to assist in determining whether we are properly using God's name in the political sphere. Remember, we may pursue all sorts of goals in a democratic society as individuals, but neither individuals nor the church can speak on their own authority in the name of God. We do not need to observe the following rules except in the specific cases in which we claim divine sanction for our position.

Make sure it is theological, not political. I use those terms in their most etymological sense. In other words, what we offer is a critique of particular political situations based on biblical revelation concerning God, humanity, sin and redemption , the meaning of history, and so on. While individual Christians may be called to the noble task of forming particular public policies, this is not the church' s calling as an institution. For instance, the '--""" church must speak out in defense of the sacred charac~~r of life. Human life derives its dignity, not from the importance attached to it by law or by judges, but from the significance

God attaches to it, since human beings were created in his image. What does this mean for abortion? Surely that Christians and indeed the churches must speak out and each believer must be convinced in his or her own mind how precisely to tackle the problem; but it does not mean that the Christian faith demands one particular public policy position or another, except in very unusual circumstances. We may all seek to end abortion~ on~ demand in God's name, because we have his will concerning human life on record in Scripture and even radical pro~ choice proponents will concede that the life in the womb is indeed human. Nevertheless, we are left to our own wisdom (which, we hope, will be illumined by God through prayer) in specific strategies and policies. For the latter we must not claim God's expressed blessing or commandment and Christian liberty must not be denied to those with widely divergent views as to how justice is to be done, so long as those views do not contradict God's revealed will. f we are thinking theologically as a church, we realize that violence against the unborn is surely no more heineous than violence against civilians in such war~ ravaged areas as Bosnia. And yet, in spite ofregular reports in which we see children lining the streets in pools of blood , a genocide in the name of"ethnic cleansing, " the churches seem to be silent. Where are the protests? Where are the impassioned defenses of human life for these children after they are born? Similar questions ought to be asked about children in our own country, since more than 20 percent of the nation's children live in poverty. Francis Schaeffer, who got the church moving on the abortion question, thought theologically. He was calling evangelicals to rediscover the doctrin~s of creation, the fall, redemption, stewardship of earthly resources, and a variety of other issues. The same man who spoke out against abortion in Whatever Happened To The Human Race? wrote Pollution And the Death of Man. Schaeffer also had some fairly stem things to say about the attitudes of white evangelicals to their non~ white brothers and sisters. But this is characteristic of our history as evangelicals, if not of our contemporary approach. B. B. Warfield, a Southerner and the staunch defender of orthodoxy at turn~ of~ the~ century Princeton, not only defended the inerrancy of Scripture; he also wrote impassioned pleas for the civil rights of the former slaves. It is impossible for historians to separate the struggle against slavery, child labor, and other injustices in the modem industrial era from the history of evangelicalism. And yet, aside from the abortion issue, if the evangelical movement were committed to defending the oppressed today, without capitulating to typicalleft~ wing or right~ wing solutions, the secular press would be at a loss for words. If we thought theologically, we would more readily see the connections between these issues, but we think politically. It is particular public policies, devised in the laboratory of the secular conservatives or secular liberals, not particular doctrinal con victions, that guide our concerns and involvement. Our involvement is, therefore, predictable and unbelievers eventually become quite cynical about our casual invocation of the name

SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 1994

of God for policies that always happen to coincide with the particular position of our political party. Throughout the Old Testament, the prophets in, voked the name of God in judgment against bloodshed, mistreatment of the poor and the alien, sexual immorality, and the like. So while we know that we can use God's name with confidence in our outrage at the genocide in Bosnia, we must wrestle with the complicated issues involved in this age' old crisis and distinguish between the calling of the church to remind the world of the larger issues involved, and the calling of the state to make specific foreign policy decisions .which are beyond the church's expertise and legitimate authority. While we have every right to use God's name to call the world to account, we cannot identify that name with particular agendas or policies to which he has not committed himself in print.

Make sureyou distinguish between the church's calling to proclaim the Law and the Gospel (revealed in Scripture) and the state's calling to enforce civil justice, based on natural revelation.

Even in the realm of morality, Sola Scriptura (only Scrip, ture) stands. Just as we cannot dictate the personal behavior of individual Christians beyond Scripture (aI, though we do it anyway) , we cannot dictate public morality in the name of God beyond that which is written into the human conscience by creation. We cannot even attempt to force the Ten Commandments on a godless society. This does not mean that we do not preach them and call all men and women to repentance by the preaching of the Law, but it does mean that we cannot really enforce the Ten Commandments in the civil sphere. I realize that this is a controversial position today, so let me explain it. First, remember that the "first table" of the Law concerns our relationship to God, prohibiting the worship of other gods, the false worship of the true God, reverence for the name of God, entrance into God's Sabbath rest: These are not things that the courts and police can or should enforce, as the true worship of God depends on a right relationship with God and this belongs only to those who have been reconciled to God by Christ alone through faith alone. Unless we truly believe that it is the business of government to force people to become Christians, the first table of the Law is not to be legislated by the state, but is rather to be proclaimed by the church and is to shape the witness of the church as it is properly related to God by the Gospel. It is the duty of every person, but it cannot and ought not to be the duty of the state to enforce it. That leaves us with the remaining commandments regarding our relationship to each other. Surely, it is not the place of the state to enforce love, and yet Jesus tells us that this is what the Law commands. The state can keep me from murdering my neighbor with my hands, but cannot keep me from murdering my neighbor in my heart. It seems clear from the Scriptures themselves that God gave his written Law to Israel as part of the covenant, and not to any other nation. When Moses was infonned that, because of God's anger with that unbelieving generation, 6

SEPTEMBER! OcrOBER 1994

it would be left to Joshua to lead the next generation into the promised land, the patriarch reminded his holy nation, "What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous laws I am setting before you today?" (Dt 4:7,8). ~ Thus, a sign ofIsrael' s elect status was the nearness ofGod in prayer and in the Ten Commandments. No other nation enjoyed such an intimate relationship with God that they were actually in covenant with him: "I shall be your God and you shall be my people" was addressed to no other nation. f Israel was the only nation in history to enjoy the linking of the two kingdoms, and the church today is the new Israel, then no nation can be "in covenant" with God as was Israel. Even the most Christian nations stand under God's judgment and enjoy no special relationship with him. While those nations whose institutions are founded on a Judeo, Christian understanding of righteous, ness and justice are far more likely to execute their secular callings wisely and justly, there is no guarantee that they will and there is no guarantee that pagan societies will not. That is because the Law ofGod is written on the conscience and even the heathen have a sense of right and wrong. In fact, Paul argues in Romans that both Gentiles, without the Law, do that which is contained in the Law, while very often the Jews themselves, though confident because they had the Law given to them, lived contrary to it. In summary, Paul says, both Jew and Gentile stand under the Law's condemnation, for "there is none who is righteous, no not one" (Rom 3:10). But just because there is no one who has kept God's Law perfectly, either as it is written on the conscience or on tablets ofstone, that does not mean that it is impossible for men and women to discern right from wrong. This is why John Calvin argues, for instance, that as you "look around and glance at the world as a whole, or at least cast your sight upon regions farther off, divine providence has wisely arranged that various countries should be ruled by vaious kinds of government. "While Calvin certainly did not deny that the moral Law of God is the standard of true righteousness, he strongly criticized the idea held by many Christian "revolutionaries" in his day "who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. " It is not a question of what God requires, but of what the state must require. God demands total obedience in heart and life, and this must be proclaimed by the church to the world, in order to drive sinners to Christ and then guide their lives, while the state is simply concerned with civil order, safety, and public justice.

M ake sure that

natural law is your common ground.

This leads us inevitably to the discussion of "natural law. " Ifwe cannot enforce the Ten Commandments in American society, how on earth can Christians persuade non, Chris tians to obey a higher authority than the Supreme Court? Here again, we find help in Augustine's and Calvin's interpretations of Scripture, but first to the infallible authority mod e'rn R EFORMATION

itseIÂŁ The Apostle Paul declared that even the most godless "secular humanists" have accurate lmowledge about God. They cannot lmow everything about him, not even some of the most important things: That he is a trinity, that he has spoken through the prophets and brought salvation to the ends ~ of the earth through the life, death, and resurrection ofChrist , . and so on. But they do lmow enough by nature to condemn them apart from supernatural revelation ( Rom 1: 18, 20) . This lmowledge of right and wrong and the transcendent divine authority above their judgments of right and wrong implies that even pagans can set up just societies. And what is implicit here is explicit in Romans 2: 14:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, since they show that the requirements ofthe law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. They cannot be justified before God by their occasional obedience to the Law written on the conscience any more than the Jews can be excused by their occasional obedience to the Law written on tablets. Nevertheless, there is enough there for what philosophers and theologians have called "natural law. " he medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas was one of the most brilliant exponents of this notion of "natural law" since Augustine. Modem historians are agreed that John Calvin was one of the chief architects of our modem understanding of this theory, a theory which has been rejected today in favor of relativism and pragma, tism. This "natural law" is not a rival to God's Law, rather it is that same universal divine mandate imprinted on humanity's conscience as part of God's image. But since modem nations are not in a covenantal relationship with God, as Israel was, the rule ought to be "general equity, " as it was established by constitutions and interpreted by courts. Note Calvin's comments:

from society to society, "They do not agree on the manner

of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or expedient, "

since each society has its own particular problems which

require specific policies and punishments.

So, Calvin observes,

How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God's law! For the statement ofsome, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain. For others are not preferred to it when they are more approved, not by a simple comparison, but with regard to the condition of times, place, and nation; or when that law is abrogated which was never enacted for us. For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere; but when he had taken the Jewish nation into safekeeping, defense, and protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver especially to it; and-as became awise lawgiver-he had special concern for it in making its laws.

Therefore, while the church may insist on universal equity (justice) in the name of God, it may not claim God for democracy, even though many of the great biblical doctrines suggest a form of government that is certainly compatible and perhaps even most consonant with democracy, as Calvin him,

self argues in that same chap,

ter. Our defense of the unborn ought to be made on the same basis as our defense of ci villib, erties for everyone in this coun, try: Equity, and this can be argued on the basis of natural Equity, because it is natural, cannot but be the same for all, law, without a single reference and therefore, this same purpose ought to apply to all laws, to the Bible.

But in our day, not only do

whatever their object. Constitutions have certain circum, stances upon which they in part depend. It therefore does not we seem to have trouble dis tin,

matter that they are different, provided all equally press guishingnatural revelation from special revelation; we have

toward the same goal of equity. trouble also, it seems, distin, First, notice that here Calvin is employing the principle guishing absolutes from non, mentioned above: Distinguishing over, arching univer, absolutes. Any compromise in sals, clearly discovered in Scripture, from particular appli, the political arena is regarded as cations or policies, which differ from nation to nation. It is a fact that the law ofGod which we call the moral law . a fatal blow to principle. Any

is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that questioning ofsupply, side eco,

conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of nomics is tantamount to her, men.. .Hence, this equity alone must be the goaland rule and esy, since, as Falwell argues, limit ofall laws. Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, America's free enterprise system was patterned on "the directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason clear teachings of Scripture. " Justly outraged at a moral why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may relativism that has rendered it almost impossible to say that anything is true, good or beautiful (except, of course, for differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves. the dogma of relativism itself), many Christians refuse to

Then Calvin refers to the example of stealing. God's Law that there is any place in the political, social,

acknowledge forbids stealing, but prohibitions of this nature are found, or moral arena for "things indifferent" (i. e., the "rela,

he observes, in "the very ancient laws of other nations" as It is true that we ought to be "black and white" on

tive"). well. However, while the civil penalties imposed varied

Whenever a cup of water is given in Christ's name, the Bible says, God's name is hallowed. Whenever vve pursue our calling with excellence, God's name is glorified. Whenever we care for our families,

respect is given to the name of God, even by those 'who do not yet know Him.

SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 1994

the sanctity of life, stewardship of the divinely, given earthly resources, the dignity of work, civil liberty, and other absolutes we not only find in Scripture, but find written on the human conscience. Nevertheless, general wisdom guides our application of these universal aims and truths, a wisdom that is always fallible and conditioned by particular factors.

Conclusion It is the role of the church to make known God's revealed will in Scripture, including the Ten Commandments; it is the state's role to enforce God's revealed will in nature by pursuing j~stice ("equity") through wise counsel, legiti, mate government, and the rule of constitutional law. I am convinced that if the church were to Âˇdeal seriously with these categories, we would see more fruitful dialogue and less hostile rhetoric that squelches meaningful advances. The church must realize that it still has an obligation to expose unbelief and immorality as a matter of ultimate consequence and therefore more serious than politics , and yet it does not have the power of the state to enforce this, but the sword ofGod-namely, his Word. This alone can bring con viction, as the Spirit works with the Word to bring a person to repentance. And it is also the church alone that has the ultimate remedy to this ultimate crisis: The Gospel. As it stands, the church is perceived, both left, wing and right, wing, as an instrument ofideology, along with every other special interest group, engaged in the modem quest for the "will to power. " No one person or group of individuals may rise up and impose its will even in the name ofGod and Christ. For we are all sinners-still, yes, even we Christians. Self, righteousness only intensifies the damage the will to power can create. I must change. I must believe repent and believe the Gospel. I must forgive my neighbor and seek his or her forgiveness of my wrongs. Repentance is always my duty, always a burden and a joy which I must carry, not a weight of judgment which I may place on someone else, although I am obliged to announce it to all on God's behalf. This, I think, is Jesus' point in Luke 11:46, 52:

Jesus replied, 'And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people doom with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them...Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering. This is also why Paul told the immoral Corinthian church to mind its own business and get its own house in order. "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside" (1 Cor 5:12). Therefore, while the church warns of a day of judgment on the horizon, it may not take it upon itself to seek to bring down God's wrath before that day. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged, " Jesus told the religious people of his day. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Mt 7:1,6). That is not because there is no such thing as absolute truth or morality, nor because it is impolite 8

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1994

to judge. Nor indeed ought this be interpreted to mean that Christians ought not to discern good laws from bad laws and encourage the former. What it does mean is that we must not confuse the civil role of the state in exercising its temporal judgments for the preservation of good order, peace, safety, and justice with the divine judgment at the end ofhis tory. The church proclaims the latter and calls all men and women to account, making God's absolute truth and morality clear from the text of Scripture. f we want to see God's name hallowed or revered in our day, judgment must begin not in the world, but in the house of God. We have severely damaged God's credibility in our age and that is something we are all going to have to come to terms with if there is to be reformation. We are the ones who are regenerated and are being reshaped into the image of Christ. Weare the ones whom God has taken from every tribe, tongue, people and nation to be a kingdom of priests, a city of hope in the middle of the hopeless skylines of the modem kingdoms. We are, as John Stott has described the church, the true counter, .culture pointing the way to real meaning and transcendence, not just by what we say but in the way we relate to each other and reach out to our neighbors. Whenever a cup of water is given in Christ's name, the Bible says God's name is hallowed. Whenever we pursue our calling with excellence, God's name is glorified. Whenever we care for our families, respect is given to the name of God , even by those who do not as yet know Him. The evangelical world is in a state of confusion: theologically, nobody seems to know anymore what holds us together; ethically, we are scandal, ridden and worldly from head to toe; socially, we are confused as to what our relationship to the world ought to be. It seems to me, especially in the light of these New Testament warnings about judging those outside the church, that our own plate is full; that our own crisis is sufficient to warrant our full attention, and for this sort of reformation we can surely claim the name of God. 0

Michael S.Horton is president of CHRISTIANS UNITED for REFORMATION. Educated at Biola University and Westminster Theological Seminary, Michael is a Ph.D. candidate at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University ofCoventry and is the author/editor ofeight books, including The Agony of Deceit (Moody Press), Made In America:The Shaping of American Evangelicalism (Baker Book House), Putting Amazing Back Into Grace (Baker Book House), and Beyond Culture Wars.

Become a

Friend, Innkeeper,

or Architect!

Join us Today

800-956-2644

modern REFORMATION

D.C. Hart

The Church's Mission:

Great Commission or Great Society t

e have all had similar conversations, the one with fellow believers where we agree with our friends about a particular matter of public policy but end up disagreeing quite strongly about specifics of Christian faith and practice. The frustrating thing about such encounters is the way Christians can passionately pursue specific legislative initiatives or rally around a particular political

But this is precisely what has happened within many Christian communions. According to David Wells, the church has subsumed the love of God under the love of neighbor to such an extent that faith has come to mean "little more than seeking justice in the world. " The point here is not that Christians should be indif~ ferent to questions of public policy and social injustice or

candidate, but in the realm of spiritual matters, things about which believers should be far more zealous, we are surprisingly indifferent and content to live with a diversity of perspectives. For instance, one would be hard pressed to find an evangelical who is not opposed to legislation designed specifically to sanction same sex marriages. Yet, trying to find an evangelical who believed that the use of images in worship in volved breaking the second commandment is almost as hard as finding an American who thinks Major League Baseball players are underpaid.

that there is a clear consensus upon the meaning of the decalogue. Rather, the point has more to do with the misplaced allegiance ofcontemporary Christians. For what~ ever reason (and there are a host that come to mind) , evangelicals are increasingly defined and engaged by a fairly selective list of cultural and political issues. Conversely, evangelicalism has by and large become meaningless as a theological category. Not that anecdotes prove argu~ ments, but an encounter with a young mother in a conservative Presbyterian congregation does illustrate the SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 1994

point. This woman said that she and her husband had decided to join this denomi, nation because she knew it was Pro, Life. Did she understand the church's beliefs about preaching, the sacraments, or pol, ity? Probablynot. But she knew exactly where it stood (even though the church had issued no fonnal declaration) about abortion. And that was a good enough reason to join that particular congrega, tion. This is just one example of the way questions concerning church and state have not only been muddied but have also begun to be answered in political rather than theological ways. Evan, gelicals are remarkably certain about the things of Caesar and surprisingly timid about articles of the Christian reli, gion. For believers who identify and promote the teachings of the Reformation this is indeed a sad state of affairs. Unfortunately, the woes ofcontemporary evangelicals are not that unusual. The history of Protestantism in the United States testifies to a fairly steady confusion ofreligion and politics. Presbyterians and Reformed Christians have been especially guilty in this regard. Owing in part to the legacy of the state, church system in Europe and to the Reformed idea that Christ is Lord of all areas of life, including politics, Calvinists have been prominent in Ameri, can government and in advocating various political reforms. But often many of these otherwise worthwhile endeavors came with the high price ofattenuating Christian resolve in order to achieve greater political influence and build a Christian civilization. J. Gresham Machen ( 1881, 1937) was one Presbyterian who stood apart from this general tendency. Machen came to prominence during the modernist, fundamentalist controversy of the 1920s when he opposed liberal Protestantism not just as a departure from Christian orthodoxy but as an entirely different religion. In his popular book (and still essential reading) Christianity and Liberalism (1923) Machen defended Calvinistic teachings about God, human nature, sin and grace as still the best summary of the Bible and the only way for salvation. Machen went on in 1929 to found Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) and his pronounced views eventually drew fire from officials in the Northern Presbyterian Church. After being suspended from the ministry in 1936 Machen founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church to perpetuate a vehicle for proclaiming and defending Calvinist orthodoxy.

Evangelicals are remarkably certain about the things of Caesar and surprisingly timid about articles of the Christian religion. For believers who identify and promote the teach ings of the Reformation this is indeed a sad state of affai rs.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1994

nterestinglyenough, Machen's criticism ofliberalism was linked directly to problems surrounding the relationship between church and state. He believed that liberal Protestants had substituted the reform of American society for the propagation ofthe gospel. On the one hand, ~ liberals began to look to large bureaucratic institutions, including the government, to establish the kingdom of God, a task traditionally reserved in Protestant theology for the church. On the other hand, concerns for the welfare of the American nation subtly altered the liberal Protestant understanding of the kingdom of God. Increasingly, the desire to establish the reign of God in the hearts and lives of his people shifted to the pursuit of Christian civilization in United States. While not every liberal Protestant abandoned the older aim of converting the lost and nurturing the faithful, they nevertheless generally agreed that the difficulties facing the nation required the church to refashion the Gospel if it was to remain relevant and influential. And if the church were to affect public policy, the exclusive claims of the Gospel were ill suited to the inclusive and democratic aims of the nation. From Machen's perspective, liberal Protestant hopes for America misconstrued woefully the nature and task of the church. (It should be added that he also criticized fundamentalist and evangelical efforts to establish Christian civilization in the United States through the more religious means ofrevi vals and individ ual morality. ) As he declared to a gathering of political and social scientists in 1933, "you cannot expect from a true Christian church any official pronouncements upon the political or social questions of the day, and you cannot expect cooperation with the state in anything involving the use offorce ... [T] he function of the church in its corporate capacity is ofan entirely different kind. Its weapons against evil are spiritual, not carnal; and by becoming a political lobby, through the advocacy of political measures whether good or bad, the church is turning aside from its proper mission, which is to bring to bear upon human hearts the solemn and imperious, yet also sweet and gracious appeal of the gospel of Christ. " Machen's perspective on the work of the church reflected a doctrine which some has been commonly called the spirituality of the church. According to this teaching the church's sole task, the one for which Christ ordained it, was to proclaim the good news ofsalvation in Christ and make disciples. In the words of a Presbyterian General Assembly, "The church of Christ is a spiritual body, whose jurisdiction extends only to the religious faith, and moral conduct ofher members. "Some have attributed this belief to the Southern Presbyterian Church's justification for tolerating slavery. But, in fact, this doctrine is clearly expounded in the great statements of the Reformed Faith. John Calvin in Book Four of the Institutes wrote, "there are two governments to which mankind is subject, ... [T] he first of these, which rules over the soul or the inner man, and concerns itself with eternal life... the second, whose province is the establishment of merely civil or external justice, a justice in conduct. .. Anyone who knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present transitory life and the eternal life to come, will not find it

modern REFORMATION

difficult to understand that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things far removed from one another. It is a Judaic folly to look for the kingdom ofChrist ,~ among the things that make up this world, and to shut it up \ ____/ among them; our opinion, which Âˇ is supported by the plainest teaching of Scripture, is that on the contrary, the fruit we reap from grace is spiritual fruit. " The same sentiment appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith where in chapter thirty~ one it reads, "Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary... " The idea of the spirituality of the church also follows from the Reformers' teaching about the marks of the church. Those marks-the true preaching of the word, the proper adm,inistration of the sacraments, and practice of regular discipline-pertain not to temporal or physical affairs but concern strictly what the apostle Paul calls the "unseen and eternal" things. This doctrine does not deny in a docetic fashion the reality or essential goodness of the body and creation. Rather, it merely stipulates the scope of the church's work and refers to the family and the state the physical or temporal concerns of civic duties and community affairs. And while in the dispensation of the old covenant Israel was both a political and a spiritual entity requiring statutes that regulated civil life as well as worship, in the age of the new covenant the church's means are strictly spiritual in the light of the work of Christ who :ulfilled the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law. urthermore, the spirituality of the church is also intimately connected to the Reformed doctrine of the regulative principle. Presbyterians have historically held to the idea that because God alone is lord of the individual's conscience and because Scripture alone reveals God's will, the church is only permitted to teach and practice what is commanded in God's word. Presbyterians and Reformed Christians affirm that the church may do only what is directly commanded in the Bible. Therefore, just as the Scriptures do not reveal a God~ ordained form of government or a divinely inspired system of economics, so the church cannot speak where the Word of God is silent. Machen's ideas about the ministry of the institutional church did not mean that individual Christians could be derelict in their obligations within the realm of public morality and civic responsibilities. In fact, he was remarkably active in the political realm, testifying before national and local authorities, joining and supporting various secular political organizations, and sending a steady stream of letters for publication to the editors of newspapers and magazines such as the New York Times and The New Republic. But just as Machen's ideas about the church veered from the mainstream ofmodernist and fundamentalist thought, so his politics revealed a unique perspective among American Protestants on public life. For instance, during World War I he opposed the draft of citizens for "compulsory military service. " In a letter to his congressman he wrote that even though the United States was fighting the war to protect freedom, conscription

was threatening" American liberty and the whole American ideal of life. " He believed such a policy was a "brutal interference of the state with the life of the individual and of the family. "For similar reasons he opposed the registration of immigrants and fingerprinting of criminals because he thought these policies would in effect create a police state and destroy liberty. Machen also expressed libertarian convictions when he spoke out-writing letters to local newspapers and testifying before the city council-against Philadelphia's jaywalking laws. While he hated to see people taking foolish chances on the street and believed that outrageous and unreasonable behavior by pedestrians which obstructed traffic should result in fines, Machen was "dead opposed to subjecting a whole city, because ofthese comparatively few incautious people to a treadmill regime like that which prevails in Western cities. " Such laws prevented people from the "best and simplest pleasure a man can have, " namely, walking, and encouraged drivers to think of city streets as highways which should remain free and clear of pedestrians. Even more unusual was Machen's opposition to Prohibition. Again h&thought that the state should not attempt to eliminate the evils ofdrunkenness by prohibiting the sale and distribution ofalcohol. He was also concerned that the federal government would gain more power at the expense of local and state governments through the Eighteenth amendment. What Machen found especially erroneous was for the church to support such legislation. "The church ought to refrain from entering in its corporate capacity into the political field, "he wrote. But "in making ofitself. . . an agency oflaw enforcement, and thus engaging in the duties of police, " the church was in danger of losing sight of its proper function, "which is that of bringing to bear upon human souls the sweet and gracious influences of the gospel. " While the functions of the police were important, and while members of the church as citizens should support agencies of law enforcement, "the duty of the church in its corporate capacity is of quite a different nature. " Two other areas of American politics very dear to Machen were education and the family. He was an outspoken critic of any effort, whether at the federal or state level, to regulate the work of schools. So he opposed foreign language legislation drafted in the wake of World War I which was designed ultimately to assimilate ethnic groups in the United States rather than to allow for genuine pluralism. He also testified before Congress against the creation of a federal department of education. On the one hand such laws made government regulation of private Christian schools a real threat, and on the other hand encouraged the idea the students were the possession of the state. Interestingly enough, in keeping with his strong separationist views, Machen believed that prayer and Bible reading should be prohibited from public schools because of the potential for coercion of belief. His ideas about education were intimately connected to his high regard for the family. Machen was an important critic offederal legislation to regulate child labor. While he SEPTEMBER! OCTOBER 1994

believed that the conditions children faced as workers were a cause for concern, even more alarming was the idea that the government could dictate to parents how they should rear their children. And in back of Machen's opposition to governmental regulation of education was the idea that parents were first and foremost responsible for children, not the state. Just as parents should be able to decide the kind of schooling their children would receive, so it was up to families to determine whether children would . work and how much they would do. The political philosophy that emerges from Machen's thought about these various issues is one that is decidedly libertarian and anti~ federal. While he believed that gov ~ ernment was necessary, he also believed it was a necessary evil and that restraints of all kinds should be put upon rulers. Because men and women are sinful by nature, their possession of power, no matter how benign the individual might appear to be, was always something that could be -abused. For this reason, it was far better for there to be too little rather than too much government. achen's libertarianism and his advocacy of the separation of church and state flowed from this view of government. For rulers to exert influence in a variety of spheres always raised the possibility of tyranny and coercion. Yet Machen was no advocate of liberty for the sake of securing greater rights for individuals to do or become whatever they desired. Rather, he advocated liberty and small government for the purpose of restraining the coercive and homogenizing powers of the liberal na~ tion~ state. What many scholars have had trouble recon~ ciling in Machen is his confessional, dogmatic understand, ing of the church which tolerates no theological diversity, with his libertarian pluralistic views about society which appear to result inevitably in chaos. But actually, such narrowness in the church is quite compatible with libertar~ ian resistance to centralized government. For the growth of big government has been synonymous with the growth of individual liberties. And the growth of the state and the liberation of the individual has come at the expense of churches, families, schools and local communities. In defending the prerogative of the Presbyterian Church to exclude liberals from its communion, Machen was also defending the freedom of association. In opposing the federal department of education Machen was arguing that religious groups and local communities should be able to

While the Constitution makes it difficult to find a moral consensus and to pursue public policy on the basis of explicit Christian principles, it does grant the freedom (at least in principle) for believers to practice their religious convictions without the fetters of the state.

SEPTEMBER/OcrOBER 1994

educate their children according to their own traditions. And in opposing the Child~ Labor Amendment Machen was trying to protect families from a paternalistic government intent upon telling parents what to do with their children. In each of these cases, freedom meant refuge from the ~ power of centralized government, not liberation from legitimate authority. And in each case Machen was not defending individual rights as much as he was protecting the freedom of association. As he never tired of arguing, narrowness or intolerance within families, churches, communities, and schools was essential to the liberty and authority of those institutions. To say otherwise was to deny freedom altogether and insist upon a standard of tolerance that would obliterate all differences. What is disconcerting about Machen's understanding of politics is that it seems to leave the door wide open for either anarchy or a godless nation. Still, the record of big government over the past sixty years does not inspire confidence. While federal power has expanded, public morality has taken a precipitous tum for the worse. And to answer the critics who label such a proposition as nostalgic, one need only remember that fifty years ago the top problems in public schools as identified by teachers were talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise, running in halls, cutting in line, dress code, infraction, littering. Today teachers are worried about drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide rape, robbery, assault. The moral, as Richard John Neuhaus has written, is "Don't knock nostalgia. " To which we might add, don't trust government and legislation to curb human depravity. The best check upon human sinfulness and the best defense of public decency are local institutions, what sociologists call "mediating structures, "the institutions which stand between the individual and the state, namely, families, churches, schools and neighborhoods. If evangelicals want to make a significant impact upon American society, they need to think less in terms of the nation, the Whitehouse and the Supreme Court , and more about school teachers, neighbors 1 and community associations. This still leaves the problem, however, of ceding the United States to secularism. Many Christians still cling to the notion that America was founded- and should return to its former status-as a Christian nation. In point of fact, while the majority of citizens in the new nation were Christian and while many states still had established churches, some as late as 1830, the United States Constitution clearly establishes the freedom of religion and prohibits the federal government from establishing religion. Machen was one of the few Protestants in his day to recognize this. While the Constitution makes it difficult to find a moral consensus and to pursue public policy on the basis of explicit Christian principles, it does grant the freedom (at least in principle) for believers to practice their religious convictions without the fetters of the state. While the Constitution makes it difficult to find a moral consensus and to pursue public policy on the basis of explicit Christian principles, it does grant the freedom (at least in principle) for believers to practice their religious convictions without the fetters of the state. One need only be reminded of

modern REFORMATION

difficulties which Protestant churches faced from European states during the three centuries after the Reformation to recognize the genuine advantages of religious freedom which the American experiment offers. For rather than 11Sing the church as a vehicle for pursuing political or ~national goals, America has afforded Christians as well as the adherents of other religions to worship without having to worry about political compromise. But this blessing comes with a price and that price is a system of religious pluralism in which no single religion governs public policy. \ A /hen American Christians begin to put the V Vwelfare of the nation above the health of the church, the political pressures that undermined the witness of Europe's state churches also threaten the ministry of churches in the United States. What Machen saw, with his understanding of the church and his ideas about American politics, was that the effort to build a Christian civilization on the scale ofthe United States would in variably undermine the "integrity of the Gospel. Christians need to remember, as Machen did, to keep first things first. Our ultimate allegiance is to God as revealed in his holy Word, no matter what the political or cultural consequences. If God blesses our efforts to be faithful with the peace and stability of an orderly society, then we need to be thankful. But if we experience difficulty and persecution for our beliefs or if we find ourselves living in a godless culture, we cannot let our desire for and pursuit of a congenial society distract us from the things to which God has called us. Machen summarized well the principle, paradoxical though it may be, which should guide the Christian's ~hought about politics and society. He wrote, "Do you ----../ think that by becoming citizens of another world you will become less fitted to solve this world's problems; do yo think that acceptance of the Christian message will hinder political and social advance? No, my friends. I will present to you a strange paradox but an assured truth-this world's problems can never be sol ved by those who make this world the object of their desires. This world cannot ultimately be bettered if you think that this world is all. " Christ told his disciples, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you. " But if we seek the kingdom of God so that those things will be given to us, we will, as Machen warned , "miss both those other things and the Kingdom of God as well. "This reminder may sound strange in the highly charged atmosphere of American politics which seems to pit evangelicals against the White House. But they are important considerations which we need to heed if we want to avoid the perils of putting our society ahead of our God. 0 Dr. D. G. Hart is Head Librarian and Associate Professor of Church History and Theological Bibliography at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. From 1989-1993 he directed the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals and taught history at Wheaton College. He earned his Ph. D. atlohn Hopkins University in American history and also did graduate work at Westminster Theological Seminary and Harvard Divinity School.

Austin KIXL 970AM Boston WEZE 1260AM Cheyenne KCSP 100.9FM Chicago wYLL 106.7FM Colorado Springs KGFT 100.7FM Dallas KPBC 770AM Denver KRKS Âˇ94 .7FM Huntington, WV WEMM 107.9 FM Los Angeles KKLA 99.5FM McCook, NE KNGN 1360 AM Modesto, CA ~CIV 99.9 FM Montgomery WLlJF 89.1FM New 'York WMCA 570AM Palmdale, CA KAVe 105.5 AM Philadelphia WPHY 560AM Pittsburgh WORD 104.7FM Portland KPQD 800AM Reno/Carson City I<NIS 91.3FM Riverside CA KLFE 1240 AM San Diego KPRZ 1210AM San Francisco KFAX 1100AMÂ Seattle KGNW 820AM St. Louis WCBW 104.9FM Ventura, CA KDAR 98.3 PM Washington DC WAVA 10S.lFM

Talk Show

Michael Horton Kim Riddlebarger Rod Rosenbladt CHiuSfIANS UNITED for REFORMATION

2221 East Win~ton Road Suite K Anaheim, California 92806 800-956-2644 SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 1994

Ken Jones

CAN POLITICS SAVE? Our salvation is solely in the work of Jesus Christ on the -cross and in him alone w e are to place our absolute t rust . We are not-nor is our nati on-saved by having faith in Christ and being aligned with the Christian Right. Can Politics Save? Can politics save? Any professing Christian would answer with an emphatic no! But that's only if the topic of conversation is the doctrine of salvation. However, when the subject turns to certain hot political issues, often what sounded like absolute, unconditional doctrine is transformed into a political viewpoint. There seems to be an increasing tendency to blur the distinctive doctrines of the Christian faith and judge the integrity of Christian profession by the political views rather than by their doctrines. This "labeling" is being done by both Christians and non, Christians alike. When we hear such terms as the "Christian Right" it leads to some rather legitimate questions-are those the views of all Christians? Am I any less a Christian if my views differ in any way? Such questions demonstrate the dangers of crossing the lines between Christianity and politics. But what's at issue here? What would even prompt such a question as can politics save?

What is Salvation? I believe the problem can be understood from a twofold perspective; first, the failure to clearly and accurately define salvation. Salvation in the context of scripture (See Ephesians 2:1,10) infers two things: to be saved from something (the wrath of God); and to be saved for something ( the glory of God). We are saved because God has justified us-that is, declared us righteous because of Christ. However, salvation is seldom presented in these terms. What we are saved from is generally ignored, with all of the emphasis being placed on that for which we are saved. Without a sound understanding of what we are saved from many contemporary Christians are confused also as to that for which we are saved. As defined above, we are saved for God's glory, Ephesians 2:6, 7 "And has raised us up together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; That in the ages to come he might show exceeding riches ofhis grace in his kingdom toward us throughChristJesus. " The popular conception is that we are the "Kings Kids, " saved to be healthy, wealthy and wise, saved to perform great signs and wonders, saved to "build the kingdom of God. " 14

SEPTEMBER/OcrOBER 1994

Such a misunderstanding as to God's purpose in saving us naturally leads to a misunderstanding of the Christian's place in society. It is at this point that politics can become problematic for Christians which leads to the second aspect of our twofold perspective, misunderstanding the nature and intent of politics.

What is Politics? The nature and intent of salvation is transcendentÂ reaching beyond time and space, whereas politics per se concerns the governing of individuals in time. As a matter of fact, the Greek words associated with "polis" (city), gives us words like "citizen. " So, as "polis" is "city, " politics is that which concerns the welfare of the city; specifically, the "city of man, " not the "city of God. " So for the purpose of clarity, when we speak of politics, we are referring to the laws and institutions governing our local, state, national and even international citizenship. Of course, we are told in scripture (Phil3:20) that, as Christians, our citizenship is in heaven, but this does not mean we have no citizenship on earth. On the contrary, such passages only demonstrate the transcendent nature of our salvation. Passages like Romans 13: 1, 17 and 1 Peter 2: 12, 15 make is clear that our heavenly citizenship does not exempt our subjectivism to earthly rulers. Hebrews 13: 14 sums it up nicely: "F9r here we have no continuing city , but we seek one to come. " So we are subject to those who have rule over us and we are free to participate in the political process, but it is critical for us to understand the limitations inherent within the political systems offuner humanity. While there is some good that can and does arise from human political institutions, even at their best they lack saving power. Our best and brightest statesman and woman, our most helpful programs, are not to be confused with our Savior. This looking to a political figure or to the nation or state for salvation was a large part of the problem of the zealots of Jesus' day in the case of the former, and of the Romans, in the case of the latter, and it defines much of the political activism of Christians in America today.

modern REFORMATION

The Scriptures pro, vide us with examples of godly individuals in, volved in the political process, such as Joseph ~' in 'Genesis, Daniel and Nehemiah in the books that bear .their names. While these men used their positions and influ, ence for the good ofsoci, ety, they clearly under, stood their salvation to be distinct from their po' litical activity. We do not see these men at, tempting to politicize the kingdom of God or to spiritualize their secular service. To do so would be to elevate politics to a level that invades the re, demptive office of our Lord and Savior. The church is no more an in, strumentofthe state than By permission of Mike Luckovich and Creator's Syndicate. the state is an extension of the church. But this is exactly ofJesus Christ on the cross and it is in him that we are to place absolute trust. We are not-nor is our nationÂ the impression that is given by certain Christian political concern groups. saved by having faith in Christ plus being aligned with the Harold Bloom, a secular Jew, seems to have a solid Christian Right. Neither are we saved by faith in Christ plus voting Republican or Democrat. The addition of grasp of the problem in his book The American Religion: "---'" The Emergence 'of the Post,Christian Nation, where he anything to the completed work ofChrist is a perversion of states, the Gospel of grace. The brutal truth is, we can be I argue in this book that the American Religion, which is politically naive, immature, irresponsible or pathetic and so prevalent among us, masks itself as Protestant it has absolutely no bearing on our salvation. Whatever Christianity yet has ceased to be Christian. It has kept the this may say about our civic mindedness, it says nothing figure ofJesus, a very solitary and personal]esus, who is about our status before God. On the other side ofthe coin, also the resurrected Jesus rather than the crucified Jesus a person may be quite moral, politically aware and vote the or the Jesus who ascended again to the Father. I do not "right" way on all the hot issues but apart from Jesus Christ think that the Christian God has been retained by us, he or she is still a child of hell. though he is invoked endlessly by our leaders, and by our onsider the case of George Whitefield, that flag,waving President in particular, with special favor in great 18th century evangelist of the Great Awakening, and the issue of slavery. Here is a case that the context of war. But his invoked force appears to be the should reinforce the fact that what we are politically is to be American destiny, the God of our national faith. The viewed as distinct from what we are in Christ. Whitefield, most Gnostic element in the American Religion is an from all indications, seemed to believe that the black slaves astonishing reversal of ancient Gnosticism: we worship of the American colonies were men and women created,in the Demiurge as God more often than not under the name of manifest necessity. As for the alien God of the the image of God and should be respected as such. He had Gnostic, he has vanished, except for his fragments or an overwhelming desire to educate them and to preach the sparks scattered among our few elitists ofthe spirit, or for Gospel of Christ to them. Yet, Whitefield used his his shadow in the solitary figure of the American Jesus. considerable influence in an effort to bring slavery into It is interesting that a non' Christian has the insight Georgia. Some of Whitefield's contemporaries disagreed to understand that the attempt to define Christianity in with his position, but Christians and church leaders differing political or patriotic terms is a departure form historic on the issue ofslavery was not uncommon. As an African, Christianity. Again, these observations are not to be American, my views of Whitefield' s politics may be quite constructed as implying that Christians should be politically critical, although I consider myself a spiritual heir to his evangelistic legacy. '-.......-/ dispassionate or unpatriotic. But it is to say that there is no political consensus or legislative agenda that is tantamount The great British Baptist of the 19th century, Charles to a Christian mandate. Our salvation is solely in the work Spurgeon, was quite adamant in his opposition to slavery

Touch mysi~

am tu Ki\\ you.. ,

SEPTEMBER! OCTOBER 1994

even to the point where the sale of his sermons in this country declined. But these instances it only underscore the fact that is one's view of Christ that determines salvation and not one's politics. Whether the issue is slavery, civil rights, abortion , health care or the death penalty, Christians have and will continue to hold different views, be they W hile there is rightorwrong, but such political diversity must some good that be understood apart from unity in Christ. can and does There is much talk today about unity and arise from solidarity among Christians, but too hum#an political often this a call to arms institutions, to the political views of the Christian Right, as even at th eir it was the Christian Left during the sixties. It best, they lack would be great to see such rallying around savi ng power. essential doctrines of the Christian faith. The real problem, however, is not Christians being politically active, which is in itself a good thing, it is the tendency to define Christianity in political terms or by legislation. It is at this point that we enter the realm of another gospel. This is what Harold Bloom has called the "American Religion. " Here' s another observation form Bloom's book: Unlike most countries, we have no overt national religion, but a partly concealed one has been developing among us for some two centuries now. It is almost purely experimental, and despite its insistence, it is scarcely Christian in any traditional way. A religion of the self burgeons, under many named, and seeks to know its own inwardness, in isolation. What the American self has found, since about 1800, is its own freedom from the world, from time, from other selves. But this freedom is a very expensive torso, because of what it is obliged to leave out: society, temporality, the other. What remains, for it, is solitude and the abyss. As Christians we should not isolate ourselves or put ou~ heads in the sand, but it is absolutely critical that we make the distinction between the city of God and the city of man. It is our duty to make this world a better place in which to live even as we remember that America is not our Jerusalem, our city of Everlasting Peace. The concepts of solidarity and diversity must be held in proper balance when discussing Christianity and politics. As Christians we should be solidified on the essentials of the Christian faith. With one voice we should declare the one Gospel. Jesus does not declare himself to be one of the ways to heaven or even the best way, he simply says that he is "The Way. " The Gospel should be expressed in terms that are equally absolute. Paul in both Galatians 1:6~ 9 and 2 Corinthians 11 :4 16

SEPTEMBER/OcrOBER 1994

deals with the absolu te singularity ofthe Gospel message , This is why it is distressing to hear Christians respond to the question, "W hat is the Gospel? " , "To me the Gospel is... "Yet when it comesto political issues as pointed out above we represent a diversity of views. When we fail to be clear on what grounds we are to be absolutely solidified as Christians we run the risk of misrepresenting our relationships with non, Christians. In civic matters we are to be concerned about issues that are important for all citizens, Christian and non, Christian alike. Therefore we may find ourselves united with unbelievers or people of different religions in our political involvement. This in vol vement or participation should in no way be perceived as comprising the Gospel, as it relates to our horizontal relationships on this plane. Other articles in this issue will explain in more depth the distinctions between the kingdoms of man and the kingdom of God. Suffice it to say here that we are encouraged rather than forbidden to seek to make life better on this plane. And in doing so we will find ourselves in league with people of diverse religious backgrounds. But when it comes to salvation we will part company, taking our position on the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Confusion on this point will cause us to define Christianity by political positions and to alienate non~ believers on issues which equally concern them and on which they may have positive contributions. ome seem to be on a crusade to win America back to God through the political process. Time and space will not allow me to expound on how unbiblical is such a crusade, but such confusion of America and of salvation inevitably leads to a misunderstanding of evangelism. If salvation or revival is attempted through the political process or the legislation of morality, then evangelism will center on Capital hill rather than on Calvary's Hill. T o look at the world around us we should be outraged at the crime and violence injustices, poverty and corruption . And we should use the political process through personal involvement to make a change. But any positive change should be construed as salvation or returning America back to God. 0

The Reverend Ken}ones is the pastor of Greator Union Baptist Church in South Central Los Angeles. He is a graduate of Pepperdine University and is the director of CHRISTIAN UNITED for REFORMATION'S Lynnwood, California, Academy.

modernREFORMATION MAGAZINE One year subscription $2 1.95

Two year 'subscription $39.,95

Call8QO-956-2644 Today.

modern R EFORMATION

'''--.../

Michael J.Glodo

'----./1

"And it shall come about w hen Pharaoh calls you and says, 'What is your occupation?' that you shall say, 'Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even unti l now, both we and our fathers,' that you may live in th e land of Goshen; for every shepherd is loathsome to t he Egyptians." Genesis 46 :33-34, NASB

anging from William Parry's "Jerusalem" (popu larized in the hit film Chariots of Fire) to the Social Gospel to Belinda Carlisle's "Heaven Is a Place on Earth" modem history has witnessed a struggle to define the proper expression of the kingdom ofGod"on earth as it is in heaven. " The thunderous return of American evangelicals to the public square in the last fifteen years has brought this matter to the forefront ofpublic discourse. Across the country conservative Christians are rallying to candidates and causes to take up what they believe is their civic responsibility. In recent months an opposite reaction has surfaced with equal zeal to prevent the so~ called "New Christian Right" from being successful. While much of this opposition is motivated by anti~ Christian thinking, one can detect a genuine fear ofwhat the New Right's success could do to harm the workings of democracy. 1 It seems timely look to scripture's own formulation of this issue in order to know how Christians should regard and engage this perennial issue. The Bible begins to address the matter very early onÂ earlier than many might realize. This ancient story is a tale of two cities and it begins with the first siblings. Abel pleased God with his offerings and Cain did not. The jealous Cain murdered his brother and was confronted by God with his crime. Although attention is usually focused on the nature of the mysterious "mark of Cain, " of greater interest should be the nature of Cain's punishment and Cain's reaction to hearing of it. "When you cultivate the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you; you shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth. " (On 4: 12) Cain reacted with fear and dismay (v. 13). We can understand Cain's reaction by looking to the respective vocations of the two brothers and to Cain's subsequent actions. Abel was a herdsman. This is not the day oflarge feed lots and stockyards. The life of a herdsman was the life of a wanderer, moving from pasture to pasture living off the land. By way of contrast, Cain was a farmer. Today we associate farming with rural life, living in the country in dependence upon the land. In the Ancient Near East farming was an urban occupation. Though it was not something done within the walls of a city, it required technology-the digging of canals for irrigation and the building of barns for storage. Further, farming made the city possible. With the planting and harvesting ofcrops life became more stable, facilitating the building of cities. Conversely, farming was dependent upon the city because its ready market and economic infrastructure sustained the farmer's livelihood. The conflict between Cain and Abel was not simply a case of sibling rivalry: it was the conflict of ruralite and

SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 1994

urbanite, ofwanderer and city, dweller. Cain sought the security of the city! the technological security of man's accomplishments. This explains his fear of God's punishment. That this outlook belonged to Cain was further confirmed when he built a city and named it after his son Enoch (v. 17). Naming a city after oneself or one's progeny was a source of pride and boasting (cf. "Raamses", Ex 1: 11). What is more, Cain is the father of a people with whom technology is associated (Gn 4:22) . he Cainites are set in contrast to the Sethites who include a different Enoch. But this Enoch, rather than having the glory of the city attached to his name, was the humble one who "walked with God" (Gn 5:22) The particular form of the Hebrew verb here connotes not only a manneroflife, butgoingabout, i: e. sojourning (e. g. Gn 13: 17, 48: 15). The early chapters of Genesis, therefore, present a contrast between two peoples-one which builds cities and one which sojourns with God. The contrast is not merely one of sociological interest, for these two lines are in opposition to one another, their corporate lives being organized around antithetical interests as foretold by God in his words of curse upon Satan: "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel. " (Gn 3: 15) The characters of these two races of man are further developed. The most poignant expression of the city, builders was the tower of Babel incident (Gn 11). Their intended purpose was that this tower, in reaching to heaven, would "make for ourselves a name. " (v. 4) That purpose was juxtaposed to the notion of being scattered over the face of the earth. While man's creative capacity and communitarianism were given by God to image (and therefore glorify) God, here both are perverted for man's

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1994

own glory. Even after the flood and the different world order introduced through it, there is a remnant of the Cainite love for the city. Though this is not a biological remnant of the Cainites, it is of the same spirit which had its beginnings with Cain and which persists to the present. In stark contrast to Babel is the history which immediately follows. Genesis 12 begins th~ story of Abraham. He left his country! his family and a great city of its day to wander after God. Abraham and his sons after him lived in the land that God promised them but which they never possessed. As the writer of Hebrews so aptly describes it "By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise. " (Heb 11 :9) Abraham's transience was so important in the mind of Moses and the nation of Israel that it was the confession to accompany the offering of the first fruits, that which Von Rad called "Israel's credo. " There the presenter would declare "My father was a wandering Aramean. " (Dt 26:5) Abtam stood in marked contrast with his nephew, Lot, who, when given the choice of where he would establish his own family, "settled in the cities of the valley." (Gn 13:12) Lot's loveforthe security of the city is indicated explicitly when, upon being delivered from the fiery judgment upon Sodom and Gomorra, he feared the mountains to which the angel had instructed him to flee. Lot pleaded, "I cannot escape to the mountains, lest the disaster overtake me and I die; now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there ( is it not small?) that my life may be saved. " (Gn 19: 19b, 20) Lot clearly understood this was something the angel of the Lord would not grant without some pleading. Lot, in contrast to Abraham, sought the security of the city, even if it could be only a small one. The contrast of urbanite and ruralite was completed

modern R EFORMATION

in Genesis through Joseph' s instructions to his brothers. By the time he made that statement in Genesis 46:34, Joseph had revealed himself to his brothers as their long, lost sibling and as Pharaoh's vice, regent over all of Egypt. His instructions were to maximize the well, being of the Jacobite clan upon their move to Egypt. When Pharaoh inquired as to their trade, the brothers were to respond, "Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers. " The purpose in their response, besides being the truth, was "that you may live in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is loathsome to the Egyptians. " The Israelites would have drawn several lessons from this. First, they would have understood better Egyptian antipathy toward them. Secondly, they would have seen Goshen as God's provision for them and understood the importance of resisting religious syncretism with Egyptians. n the book of Genesis, Moses presented the Israel , of the exodus with two categories of people. One sought the security of the city and glorified man's accomplishments. The other was willing to follow God as a pilgrim community toward the destination which God has promised them and to which He had promised to bring them. These two peoples Augustine of Hipppo called the "city of man" and the "city of God," respectively. And he applied this division to describe all of human history as the story of two cities. I classify the human race into two branches: the one

consists of those who live by human standard, the other of those who live according to God's will. I also call these two classes the two cities, speaking allegorically. By two cities I mean two societies of human beings, one ofwhich is predestined to reign with God for all eternity, the other doomed to undergo eternal punishment with the Devil. 2 That he termed the city builders "the city ofman" we can understand from its association with self, glorifying city building. But why would he refer to God's people as the "city of God?" It is because this people seeks security in a city, too, but one which God builds. In the pattern of Abraham, they are" looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. " (Heb 11: 10) This is the city which was foreshadowed by the Jerusalem of old, but which will be realized in the "city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God." (Rv 3:12; d . 21:2, 10) Meredith Kline has termed these two cities "Metapolis" ("meta," meaning "beyond") and "Megapolis" ("mega, " meaning "large" or "great") Of the former he states it was

offered to man at the beginning in the prophetic sanctions ofthe Covenant of Creation, [and] is again offered as the final goal of the process of cosmic redemption. It is promised as the crowning achievement of Christ, the redeemer, king. Towards it the people of the covenant wind their historical way as pilgrims in a wilderness.3 As its name indicates, Metapolis is the transcendent city which is established from heaven. Of the Megapolis Kline asserts:

Over against the heavenly city stands the other city,

mundanely present and visible to all. Although the term

"city of man" used for this other city marks, in the first

place, the contrast between human political government

as an interim product of common grace and the city of

God as a holy eschatological kingdom produced by

redemptive grace, "city of man" also carries a negative

religious charge insofar as it connotes the apostate

character borne by this city in its development under the

hand of fallen mankind.4

As a biblical motif which runs from the fall to the consummation, the distinction between the city of man and the city ofGod is a major feature of the post, fall pre, consummation epoch in, which we live. It informs us, contrary to many popular understandings, that the overriding and dominant metaphor for the church is that of pilgrims in passage. One might counter that the dominant metaphor could shift to "a city on a hill" or some other figure appropriate to cultural hegemony. After all, have not our

W ith the church being identified with

particular cultural forms and the Gospel

being identified with the rhetoric of

bipartisanism, the Christ who is known is

not the Christ of the cross.

He is the christ of cultural values, the

christ of polarizing rhetoric, and the

christ of political alliances.

own presidents often cited the remark of Winthrop, des, ignating America as "a shining city upon a hill"? The writer of Hebrews is quite clear that "there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. " (Heb 4:9) The city of God is not expressed in geo, political realities until the consummation. Therefore, both in terms of aliens in the land of promise and followers of God in the wilderness, Christians are never "there" until the rule ofChrist is established visiblyat his comingagain. Neither the Mayflowernor the Space Shuttle will bring these pilgrims to their "new world, " their true homeland. Awareness of the distinction between the two cities and understanding to which one belongs brings a number of profound implications for the Christian. First, we can understand the ultimate antithesis that exists between the two cities. This saves us from dismay at culture's reaction to the Gospel. We may understand also where our ultimate loyalties must lie when we are faced with compromise. Secondly, we should never place our hope in human accomplishments. While we may appropriate and participate in them, they are not where our hope is vested. As we come to the twilight of the Modem era with its fast, failing SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 1994

confidence in technology as the absolute redeemer of mankind, we may find this lesson the easiest to learn. Thirdly, and related to both, we must condition our expectations for cultural transformation. This is especially important in light of the above, mentioned zeal with which many Christians approach the subject. Coming to grips with this might make Christians less than the most gullible of voters, for instance. Civil government, while necessary and God, ordained forthis age (Rom 13: 1, 7) , at its very best cannot even approximate the righteous rule of God on earth. Yet our zeal for cultural transformation can make us vulnerable to skillful manipulation by those who desire our votes and influence. ut our concern should be for more than merely the weaknesses which a desire for cultural transformation exposes. When cultural influence becomes a substantial focus of the church, it gives over to the megapolis the exclusive hope of the metapolis. If the church finds itself in a position of cultural influence, it may well have abandoned its distinctiveness as the church. A contrary understanding blurs the line between the two cities which are antithetical to one another. It opts for a metaphor for the church other than that of aliens and strangers. There is, in fact, an inverse relationship between the church's desire for cultural influence and her faithfulness to Christ. To live as citizens of the city of God our expectations of culture must be conditioned. As Richard John Neuhaus has pointed out, there is a dual aspect to the proper understanding of Christ and culture. In his reflection on Christ's proclamation of the coming of the kingdom Neuhaus writes Our Lord both relativizes and empowers our efforts to effect change. Our efforts are relativized, because we know that all the changes we can make, or even all the changes that we can envision, are at best penultimate, our hearts being fixed on the ultimate transformation that will be effected by the coming of the kingdom. Our efforts are empowered, because we act, not trusting in our-own successes but in his final vindication. We are enabled to act in the courage of our uncertainty, because we do not know what our actions--our most fervent, most devoted, most sel[,sacrificial actions-will mean in the end. Wedo

not need to know. It is enough that he knows. 5 I t must be said, however, that when we do good and do it well, we have a boldness that whatever stands, if anything, is the work of Christ through us. This is over against the evacuationist tendencies ofmillennarianism. Our status as aliens and strangers does not permit cultural withdrawal. Although our ultimate allegience is to the city of God, we do hold dual citizenship in that we have rights as well as reponsibilities in this world. This is clearly reflected in Jesus' words to render to Caesar (Mt 22: 21). Further models are found in Daniel's service in the courts of N ebuchadnezzar as well as Jeremiah's exhortation to the exiles to "seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare. " (Jer 29:7) But too often the redemptive agenda of the 20

SEPTEMBER/OcrOBER 1994

Christian is misapplied to the civil sphere with the result of antipathy towards Christ among the non, Christians and lackluster service rendered to the citizenry by believers. The responsibility of the Christian to be salt and light is an individual responsibility to be a good public citizen, not the institutional responsibility ofthe church. In spite of all the Christian is positively obliged to do, one must reckon with the subtle pitfalls ofin vol vement in the politically, charged atmosphere of today' s culture. With the church being identified with particular cultural forms and the Gospel being identified with the rhetoric of bipartisanism, the Christ who is known is not the Christ of the cross. He is the christ of cultural values, the christ of polarizing rhetoric, the christ of political alliances. As we witness a renewed interest in the Reformation, we must remind ourselves that it was not about the reformation of culture. It was a reformation of religion. To the extent that cultural reformation is the primary focus, it is the city of man which we attempt to rehabilitate. This minimizes the transcendent character of the city ofGod. Worse, thecityofGod, fromahuman perspective, lies , in disrepair. Many have rightly emphasized the need for focusing on individual transformation of persons through the preaching of the gospel. This is an excellent corrective. But we further must understand that the kingdom of God is built from the top down as well as from the inside out. An individualistic moralism is as apt to corrupt the Gospel as a nationalistic variety. If God in his wisdom grants some forms of cultural progress through the work of the church, we should rejoice and enjoy it-but remain ever watchful for hypocrisy. If God deigns that the Gospel be a single light against the night of a new dark age, we should rejoice at the purity of the church it will bring. However, in good days or bad the work of the church is the work of pilgrims as they await their Metapolis. We could do no better tha~ the saints of old who died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. (Heb 11: 13) 0 1 For a chronicle of these current dynamics see James Davison

Hunter's Culture Wars and Before the Shooting Begins as well as

Michael S. Horton's Beyond Culture Wars (Moody Press) .

2 City of God, XV. 1.

3 Kingdom Prologue, S. Hamilton, MA: 1991. P. 112.

4 Ibid. 112.

S "The Christian and the Church, "in Transforming Our World:

A Call to Action, James M. Boice, Ed. Portland, OR:

Multno~ah Press, 1988. P. 119.

Michael Glodo is a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary . (M.Div. and Th.M.) He is a rh. D. Candidate in Hermeneutics and Biblical Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). Ordained in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, he served in the pastorate in the St. Louis area. Presently, he is an Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando).

modern REFORMATION

Allen Mawhinney

IN Y OUR FACE

Talk Show Culture Invades the Church (

A Culture with an Attitude

Although I fancy myself a language teacher, it seems that I am often the last to learn of changes in my own English language. A little over a year ago my teenager daughter bewildered me with her shouts about a friend, "Man, that girl has an attitude! " Naively, I said something like, "Of course she does. Everyone has an attitude of some kind. Why get so excited about someone having an attitude? " In the following fifteen minutes I learned that "attitude" had acquired a greater specificity than I had realized and now meant brazenness, boldness, and cockiness all combined with a defiant strain of anger and streaked with a refusal to trust anyone. Even more striking than the fact that a formerly neutral word such as attitude had acquired what appeared to me to be such a negative meaning was the revelation that this new "attitude" was actually admired by many teenagers and at least somewhat envied by almost all. In retrospect, I should not have been too surprised. The antagonistic nuances of "attitude" are part of a much larger picture, a major shift in American society to its present condition as an "in your face" culture. In Athletics

The theatrical positioning of "professional wrestling" used to be a uniquely clownish fringe of the American sports scene. Now the landscape ofmajor sporting events is filled with belligerence, taunting, and flagrant fouls. The

National Basketball Association has failed to deal with the deliberate fouls of the Dennis Rodmans and Major League baseball seems unable to stop ego driven batters from charging the pitcher after an inside fastball. Bench clearing brawls have become daily fare. In Advertising

Such flagrant bellicosity receives token repudiation in the form of $10, 000 fines to players making millions but the advertising for the game plays up the hostility as a selling point. It is heard in the raspy fight announcer~ like voice building up the personal animosity of National Football League opponents for the coming weekend. It is seen in a local Orlando radio station's sports program, "In Your Face Live. " It is virtually felt in Nintendo's advertising line, "Give the world a wedgie. " In News Coverage

Even more troubling than the merchandising of violence by ad agencies is its presence in news coverage. Reporters probing for the big headline ask leading questions and then highlight the most inflammatory parts of an interview. Not only athletes but other celebrities, politicians, and even the unsuspecting "man on the street" are goaded into the most hostile quotations. Slander and character assassination are commonplace. The New Yorker and the tabloids, NBC News and Hard Copy have become all too similar in their coverage of news such as the 0.]. Simpson trial. SEPTEMBER! OCTOBER 1994

In Entertainment

Entertainment has showcased "in your face" roles for a long time. There does, however, seem to be a proliferation of the Roseanne Barr types for whom humor means laughing at someone else's expense. (Dick Van Dyke where have you gone?) And in the name of realism "the dark side" of our heroes is fully featured. In Politics

Political debate is a thing of the past. Candidates from all points on the political spectrum specialize in ridicule, disinformation, and attempts to keep the issues from really being discussed. Never does one hear, "My opponent and I agree on the character of the problem and the first three steps to solving it, but differ on where to go from there. " That would portray one's opponent as having too much wisdom. Instead we hear, "My opponent does not understand the basic issues involved in this matter. " In Infotainment

Possibly nowhere is this" attitude" more obvious than in the hybrid of news and entertainment found in programs such as "The Rush Limbaugh Show. "Limbaugh, a masterful entertainer, laughs, slashes, and ridicules his way through an issue in a manner that destroys all possibility of genuine dialogue. It is a style which alienates most ofthose who were not in agreement with the host before the show began. On the other hand it has developed a fervent band of followers (more loyal even than those of Seinfeld, but not yet so devoted as Trekkies) . Despising the Image and the Glory

Certainly there are many different aspects (psychological, social, economic, political, and religious) of the development of this societal "in your face" attitude. At the risk, however, of being overly simplistic it must be maintained that the most basic element in this sad state of affairs is theological. It is a loss of respect for the human being made in the image of God, and ultimately for Dod himself. Scripture clearly teaches that humanity (male and female) was created in the image ofGod. That image must be seen from two perspectives. Broadly speaking, it refers to our most basic human nature. It is that which distinguished Adam (and distinguishes us) from all other animal life. It is the reason Adam found no communion with the beasts of the field, the reason Eve was formed. Speaking more narrowly, Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:16 identify the image ofGod in terms of righteousness and holiness. These texts, however, make it clear that human beings made in the image of God are not the same today as Adam in the day of creation. The apostle Paul calls for us to be renewed in the image ofthe creator. It is the testimony ofscripture that Adam's fall in sin has had devastating consequences for the image of God. In the narrower sense of the moral excellencies, such as righteousness and holiness, the image of God has been lost. And in the broader sense of moral capacities, such as covenant capabilities, the image has been most grievously distorted. 22

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1994

evertheless, every human being is still the image of God. That is the point of Genesis 9:6. "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image ofGod He made man. "So also James 3:9, "With it [our tongue] we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God. " A critically important point is that the reference to the image of God in both of these texts is not a foray into abstract and pointless theologizing. In both instances the image of God is held out as the basis of conduct that is pleasing to God. Civil law such as capital punishment and the conduct of the daily lives of God's people in matters such as the use of the tongue are the outworking of the fundamental character of people who have been created in God's image. This line of thought is clarified in the strikingly powerful New Testament texts which speak of] esus as the true image of God (2 Cor 4:4; ColI: 15; Heb 1:3) and the renewal of the image in those who are united to Christ (Rom 8:29, Eph 2:15; 4:23-24). Jesus is the true image. His glory is original, not derivative. The image of God in which human beings have been created and recreated is just what the words imply-an image. It is derivative not original. The reason the image ofGod is a basis for civil law and Christian conduct ( and we might add, evangelism) is not the autonomous glory of the human species but rather the mediated glory of God. To assault the image of God is to assault the glory of God. (The words "glory", "image", and "son" have a high degree of overlap in their use in the Bible. ) That's the basisofJames' strongwamingto "watch out how you use your tongue when talking about people. Do not show contempt for the glory of God. " We might say, "Do not share in a culture of arrogance and ridicule. Don't have that attitude. " The Fruit of an In Your Face Culture

The simplest way to describe the results of an in your face culture is "Alienation. " There are many symptoms of this alienation but the basic character of them all is separation. It manifests itself in the displacement of dialogue with positioning. News conferences, sound, and law suits displace rational interaction. The goal is not real progress, but total conquest in which opponents are humiliated. A part of this quest for complete conquest is often an inability to distinguish between major and minor issues. Every agenda item is so inextricably bound to ultimate goals that no concessions can be made at any point (either strategically or because one's opponent actually was correct on that minor point). Instead, every statement of the opposition is given its worst possible meaning and every motive is read as cynically as can be imagined. Curiously, not only does the "in your face" style destroy substantive conversation, it also ( in a society such as contemporary America) fails to convince others. Obviously pie with an "attitude" fail to change those whom they abusively attack (with rare exceptions). That is a given. Less clearly seen is the fact that the great majority ofpeople in a culture which ( rightly or wrongly) fosters the

modern REFORMATION

ideal of pluralism will reject strident attacks on any part of that culture. Is this rejection of the in your face attackers a mark ofsociety's inconsistency? That is, isn't it inconsistent for a society which prides itself on its pluralism to accept the in your face attackers on the ground that they do not appreciate pluralism? Ofcourse it is. Does that inconsistency ofsociety give the hope that if one stays in their face, people will see their inconsistency and welcome the opportunity to engage in dialogue? No. Muchmorelikely, the polarization will increase and the battle lines will become rigidly enforced by societal stereotyping. "In your face" does not (in society, in the church, or in the family) build bridges. It builds walls. Why the prevalence?

If an "in your face" posture actually thwarts the rational discussion of issues, why is it so prevalent? Again, there are many factors that play a role, and in any particular case there is a unique blend of those factors. In some instances the motivating force is greed. Controversy, hatred, and the ou tlandish sell. Talk shows hos ts from Geraldo to Ricki Lake capitalize on unleashing the most base emotions for public consumption. The facade of concern for people cannot cover the willingness to publicize the dehumanization ofthose made in the image ofGod for the sake ofadvertising dollars. There is an element (a sinfully fallen element) in all of us which revels in Rush's ridiculing expose' ofWhite House folly. There are those who are ready to manipulate and exploit that sinful side of us. Another factor in the popularity of the "in your face" attitude is its simplicity. In a culture in which educational quality and the abilities of critical thinking are on the decline, simplistic solutions look better and better. It just takes less effort to reject all of someone's views than to separate the wheat from the chaff. Modem means of communication such as television with its 30 second analysis and 15 second sound bites promote shallow discussion in which emotion and appearance count for more than logic and substance. In this information age it is less and less possible to understand any significant issue comprehensively and yet we are expected (and want) to have an opinion on everything from health reform to forms of worship to home schooling. Frustration in the face ofthis impossible task breeds the acceptance of simple but insufficient answers. Others are moved primarily by insecurity and fear. Feeling outmatched intellectually, disenfranchised politically, or excluded religiously, some resort to ridicule and intimidation to put opponents at a disadvantage. Religious conservatives who have come from a tradition of anti, intellectualism are particularly susceptible to this temptation. Often the situation is exacerbated by a strong conviction (possibly well deserved) of certainty and sometimes even by pride. The ironic combination of insecurity and pride is fertile ground for the growth of "in your face" hostility. Still others begin to display the characteristics of the "attitude" because they have learned the behavior from those with whom they share significant views. This is why

Rush Limbaugh may be Satan's most carefully crafted "harlot" molded to seduce conservative Christians into thoroughly non, Christian patterns of relationship. The very fact that some (many ?) of his views are consistent with Christian principles makes him that much more dangerous. Because it is so refreshing to hear someone (anyone) resist the typically one sided media presentations, Christians are unwittingly seduced to take another step into the lifestyle of the world and get "in the face" ofall those with whom they disagree. ome, however, are more thoughtful and conclude on the basis oftheir understanding ofthe Bible that this style ofrelating is appropriate, at least some ofthe time. "After all", so the reasoning goes, "Jesus and Paul were confrontational They were not wimps. To be meek does not mean to be a door mat. There is a significant element of truth in this position. The meek is strong. Jesus did confront the Jewish leadership and Paul did stand toe to toe with those who preached heterodoxy in Galatia and Colosse. It is important to note in this connection that Jesus' boldness in rebuking the anti, God actions and attitudes of his opponents was never expressed in ridicule designed to entertain and evoke laughter from a third party audience. It was designed to call to repentance. This is related to another importan t observation. Jesus did not hesitate "to draw a line in the sand" when the issues demanded it. He condemned the polluted temple worship (Mt 21:12-13) and the hypocrisy of religious leaders who led people away from God (Mt23). Jesus, however, knew the difference between major and minor issues. He told people to give "to Caesar that which is Caesar's" (Mt 22:21) even when those taxes were exorbitant and the rule of an ungodly Caesar was an abomination. (Note also Paul's words in Romans 13 under an even more murderous and blasphemous rule. ) Jesus did not "have an attitude. " He had perfect boldness and perfect meekness because he had perfect respect for human beings made in God's glorious image. It was the destruction of that glory of God which evoked his condemnation in the temple. It was the restoration of that glory of God in human beings which moved him in bold meekness to Cal vary.

The Challenge: Image Transformation

It is ironic that although the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus did not "have an attitude" it is equally clear that he did have a particular kind of attitude--one which is to be the model of interpersonal relationships for all his people. "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (Phil 2:5 NASB). Specifically the humility of Christ is pressed upon his people with the instructions, "Do all things without grumbling or disputing" (2: 14). This is the path to glory (2: 11) . " 0 Dr. Allen Mawhinney is a graduate of William Jennings Bryan College, Westminster Theological Seminary (California) and Baylor University. He has taught at both Covenant College in Chattanooga, Tennessee and Westminster Theological Seminary in California. He currently serves as the academic dean at Reformed Th.eological Seminary in Orlando, Florida .

SEPTEMBER/ OCT OBER 1994

Religion & Politics:

A Round Table Discussion

Panelists William Bennett, as Cuinness, Michael Horton, Jim Wallis

Moderator Cal Thomas

Organized for the news media by the Christian Bookseller's Association July, 1994, Denver Convention

Cal Thomas: Isn' t it amazing that about 15 years after thinks better. But I don't believe in trickle down the advent of the so called "Christian Right" that we are morality in America. I don't think that the person in the still debating the issues of the proper role of religion and White House can make things better by him or herself. politics. My view is that religion is political, or has a I think that it is going to require a national revival where political dimension, and all politics has a religious our consciences are raised and we all come to our senses. dimension. So the question I want to pose to our panel members is just what exactly is the proper role of religion Michael Horton: I come from the Reformation tradition in a political system, and what is the proper role of which is ostensibly where evangelicals come from-and politics in a nation that contains a good number of that is part of the problem because evangelicalism is religious people. I want to begin by saying that there are becoming more shaped by the forces of secular culture two elements here we need to look at. First of all I think than by that Reformation heritage these days. we have to begin with Thomas Jefferson's wonderful I would like to begin by arguing that this whole issue phrase, "All men are created equal and are endowed by goes back a lot further than Ronald Reagan. In the their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among nineteenth century, the moral crusade was very much a these are the right to life liberty and the pursuit of part of the American gospel. It was very important to happiness. " It was in the next clause that Mr. Jefferson have an American culture, an American church, an outlined the purpose of Government. He wrote, "And Americanreligion, etc. AndasProtestantdenominations to secure these rights governments are instituted among began to lose their hegemony over these institutions they men. " To secure what rights ? Well, the rights that God increasingly down~ played theology and doctrine in order had endowed. Why is that necessary for government to to form alliances with those who were on the right side of do? Because the founders understood that men and the political spectrum. One of the things I argue in women were basically flawed on the inside-not basically Beyond Culture Wars is that the kingdoms of this world good as modernists say-and that if they would not be and the kingdom of God are two differen t kingdoms, a constrained from within by the presence and power of distinction that seems to be lost from both the Christian God whom they worshiped, then they needed to be right and Christian left. Coming from the Reformed restrained from without by the presence and power of the tradition-a tradition that has taken this world very state in order to conform them to a standard that would, seriously-I have a lot of respect for my forebears who in because of self, evident truths, promote the general this country founded Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, welfare, provideforthecommondefense, insure domestic Brown, Yale, and other institutions. They were tranquility, and establish justice. It is, I think, because trailblazers in all kinds of disciplines, and yet they knew we have abandoned this important analysis of the human that there was another world that was not only more condition, which we used to call sin, that we now have important, but another world that helped us interpret a disfunctional government. I also would say that! think this world. Evangelicals have lost that theological the church would make a great mistake if it is looking for ballast by and large-which, by the way, has been a political deliverance. People seem to be saying that if pointed out by more secular historians and commentators we could only find another Reagan then we could make than evangelical ones-and because of that loss of 24

SEPTEMBER! OCTOBER 1994

modern REFORMATION

.-/

spiritual and theological ballast, we end up parroting whatever the world says or whatever was on Oprah's last show, perhaps with Bible verses attached to it. We used to call the confusion of politics and the gospel-saving the nation vs. saving indidvidualsÂ heresy in mainline denominations in the sixties. But now evangelicals adopt the social gospel mentality Âˇ because, after all, it's now the right politics. Part of the problem in this business is entitlement. Everyone is out for his or her piece of the pie. Not only is Christianity in danger of being increasingly confused with American culture in general-those ofyou who travel abroad know exactly how many people r~cognize evangelicalism as an American phenomenon-but it is, even further than that, in danger of being confused with white, middle class, suburban American culture. l' m not critical of the Christian Coalition, for example, for its particular policy positions. It's a free country and they represent a large segment of society. My problem is confusing that with Christianity, which I think it does. Christianity won its way to dominance by sound arguments. Stephen in the bpok of Acts is emblematic of this, for when men began to argue with him, "they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke" (Acts 6: 10). Evangelicals today focus on the people in power, and either lionize them, as in the case of Reagan, or demonize them, as in the case of Clinton. They should focus not on the people but on the ideas in power. I think that is crucial to focus on in the discussion of the culture wars.

public life, and two against those who would like to bring religion back to a prominent position in public life, but in unwise ways. The first comment is that understanding America without understanding religion would be like looking at Switzerland without the Alps. You'll make absolutely no sense of it at all. Most Americans, past and present, have understood themselves and their whole lives (including their public life) from the perspective of faith. And to squeeze that out would be totally anti, democratic. Also you can see that Christian faith, as well as religion in general, is one of the three great streams that shaped this country. And to remove what is the earliest and strongest stream would be an act of national and historical suicide. he second thing I would say on the positive side against those who discount religion in public life is that clearly, the place of faith and the religious liberty clauses in the founding documents is very close to the heart of the genius in this country. The mix of separation of church and state, faith and freedom, the ordering of religious liberty and pluralism, I think is as close as anyone has ever got in history to doing it right. Those who are trying to squeeze religion out are historically and culturally, and politically short, sighted. Now ofcourse for the last twenty' five years we have had the controversies. As Peter Berger puts it, one of the odd things about America is that she is a nation with a people as religious as India, and a leadership as secular as Sweden. In other words, the leadership in America is disproportionately secular. Now I personally don't think that most of that is hostile. I have worked in the Jim Wallis: I think what's really missing in our day is a media, and in my opinion that lack of appreciation is much more often born ofignorance rather than hostility. politics of personal responsibility, social justice, and In my experience, both in academia and in the media, community spmt. In other words, we need to be the amount of hostility is remarkably small while the involved in shaping a more biblical politics; to move away amount of indifference and ignorance is remarkably from predictable ideological politics to a prophetic spiritual large. politics. The prophets in the biblical mode were never et me now make two comments towards those very comfortable in the White House, regardless of who was in power there. That kind of a prophetic biblical who are bringing religion back in unwise ways. politics could cause a kind of convergence, bringing First, many of them do so by turning everything into the culture wars. There is a culture war; it's deep, it's together the evangelicals, Catholics, the black churches, profound, it's serious. But that is not the deepest problem people who are inside and outside churches who are we face today. I and many others would argue that the looking for change. deeper problem still is what's called the crisis of cultural I think the violence we see in our society today may authority. In other words the beliefs and traditions and be for us a wake, up call. Violence is not the problem, ideals which Americans once believed no longer have violence is a consequence of the problem. We need to their compelling power over those who believe them. understand that violence is not just caused by poverty, The situation is not us vs. them; we are fine and they are it is caused by a profound lack of hope; it is despair that the problem. So whether it is the liberal elite or the leads to chaos. So our politics must be rooted in spiritual values, and it must begin to move beyond the labels of media or whoever, they are the problem so if you clear them out all will be well. The problem with this view is conservative and liberal. Our politics must be characterized by a profound sense of hope. When our . that there is no problem in the wider culture that you cannot see in spades in the Christian church. The rot is children are planning their funerals instead of their in us, and not simply out there. And Christians are futures we have a problem with hope, and if the religious community is not infusing the public square with that making a great mistake by turning everything into culture hope, then we are not doing our job wars. It's a much deeper crisis. It's a crisis of cultural authority that affects religious people as well as secular. Os Guinness: Let me just make four comments. Two It affects all of us in the challenge of the modem world. And the other comment I had against those who are against those who would tend to discount religion in

SEPTEMBER! OCTOBER 1994

bringing religion back wrongly is that I think one of the greatest needs today is to work again for a common vision for the common good. A while back a Washington journalist said to me, "Most evangelicals speak as if they're talking ofjustice but sound as if they're talking of just us. " And one of the reasons there is such a negative aura attached to the Christian right, which is partly justified, is that there is no stand for a common vision for the common good. There is no stand for public justice. o let me pose the issues I think America faces today. At the individual level there is a simple choice. WiU we be tribes people and respond according to our group allegiances, will we be idiots (in the old Greek sense), people who are just after their own individual interests, or thirdly, will we be citizens, people who can fight for their own interests but always with a respect for the common good recognizing the rights of the worst of their enemies and the smallest minorities that they happen to oppose. Too many Christians today are tribes people. Would that they were citizens in the best sense of the word.

Cal Thomas: Let's bring Bill Bennet into this discussion. Bill, on the major issues of our day, abortion, the gay rights movement, etc. , it's fine to talk about pluralism and tolerance, but in politics someone has to make a decision. Now, you are thinking about running for president, so what are you going to do about all those people who disagree with your views? Wi lliam Bennet: Well, first of all, the Christian is not objecting to notions of tolerance and pluralism. The Christian's objection is that he is being left out of the public square entirely. I think that is the problem, Cal. It is not seeking orthodoxy or uniformity across the country. Rather, Christians entering into politics now are saying that they are the last group in America that is not respected. Everyone else seems to have their [ sic] day and we do not have ours. Our beliefs are tread upon, 'our children are not allowed to express their faith. This is the main problem we have to deal with. The Press: Bill, one nationalcolumnist recently observed that the conservative religious right is fighting for its life, suggesting that the culture is slipping away and perhaps gasping its last breath. Is there a certain desperation demonstrated in the activity of the religious right in vol ving American politics, and is there a counterpoint to the remarks of president Clinton and Joycelyn Elders about the religious right's imposing its agenda in politics and education? W illiam Bennett: I don't think its desperation at all, rather I think Christians are energized, and I thing that the Clinton presidency has helped somewhat to energize them. When Bill Clinton or Joycelyn Elders give voice to views which have angered many people, views that go against the grain of mainstream Americans and not just Christians or Jews, this I think is what has energized 26

SEPTEMBER/OcrOBER 1994

people. I don't think it is a last gasp, I think frankly the movement to get sound values back into politics and to not be embarrassed by their religious origin is stronger now because people understand that we have tried to do it value~ free; we have tried to run politics without values and we have seen the result. It is now very respectable to talk in public about the importance of the family, character education, and a whole host of things which only fifteen years ago would have been regarded as on the fringe. So I think this is an expression of strength, not of weakness, and it is that which has enraged some Democrats on the left because they fear the strength of the movement. The last point I have is that as the movement gets stronger its spokesmen must be careful of what they say and how they speak. They must remember to speak in a way and for a cause that would invite people rather than tum them away, so the example ofChristian witness must always be in the forefront. Os Guinness: I would agree with most of what Mr. Bennett said, but just with one slight difference, and that is, I think there is a note of Christian desperation. As someone put it to me, "Christians talk as if they are standing on the rock of ages, and act as if they are clinging to the last piece of driftwood. " And if you read direct mail, there is a panic, an alarmism, a paranoia, that really is born of fear, and I think that really is an explanation for a lot of the hate and some of the ugliness. The clearest example in my view is the attempt by Christians to portray themselves as a persecuted minority. It was quite deliberate, it was engineered at a stage several years ago when the Christian right looked as if it was faltering. I think it is psychologically disasterous and it appeals to resentment. It is politically ineffective and it is thoroughly sub~ Christian. But I think examples like this are examples of Christian desperation, and I think the sooner we get rid of this and have a firm faith in the sovereignty of God and of the truth of the Christian Gospel and in the openness of democracy we'll have a chance to win the debate, particularly if we put in place a public philosophy. Michael Horton: It seems to me that everyone is setting out to be a moral authority while at the same time there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy, whether you are talking about the Clinton's or the Christian right. In terms of beliefs and practices, evangelicals themselves are too much apart of the "worldliness" they themselves criticize. Let me give a couple of examples. Secular humanism is defined by leaders of the Christian right as making man the measure, while at the same time, 77% of America's evangelicals say that man is basically good, and 4 out of 5 evangelicals agree that "God helps those who help themselves." If secular humanism is faith in humanity, rather than faith in God, then today's evangelical are prime suspects. And on practical matters, 1 in 6 women who have abortions claims to be a born again Christian. I have personally known a number of Christian leaders who were writing book on marriage and

modern REFORMATION

the family while their families were falling apart. I think we have to realize that the church needs to be the church again, it needs to recover its theological roots. Ideas have consequences, and I think we are seeing Christians themselves failing to live up to their theological convictions because perhaps they are not really in touch with that theology themselves. also thought Mr. Bennett's remark that Bill Clinton has energized evangelicals was very interesting. I think that's part of the problem. I come at this, not as a player in Washington, I come at this as a pastor who is concerned about an evangelicalism that is becoming increasingly shaped by cultural, rather that spiritual and theological factors. And I think that point that Mr. Bennet made is very important for us to take away. Bill Clinton, by antithesis, is energizing evangelicals. I think that is a very scary thing, because what it means is, first of all, that our witness is reactive, and secondly, that our witness is determined by politics rather than by the Great Commission, and I think that is very tragic

Jim Wallis: Some of us don't feel that the White House has been a source ofmoral guidance for a long time. And I think that Christian preoccupation with who is in the White House and how they can get there to be with them is the source of our problems. I also think we are still plagued by false choices. There is this attitude out there that our choices are to be either completely secular or be perfectly aligned with those of the religious right. This is simply not the case. There are many evangelical Christians who are not politically on the right. There are moderates, there are progressives, and there are many who in fact do not find that their priorities articulated the extremes of either party. Cal Thomas: I think it is interesting to remember that 2, 000 years ago the ancient Israelites were looking for a deliverer to end the secular oppression of Caesar and the Roman government. But because they were looking for a political messiah, they missed the one they were in greater need of. I agree with Jim, that we are not going to have trickle down morality; it has to be bubble up. So some of my wonderful friends on the Christians right (which is better than being pagan left) are making the same mistake as the ancient Jews of two thousand years ago, I think. Let me get back if I can to the issue of character education and virture, now that these concepts are once again in fashion. What exactly is virtue and how do you instill it in a people if not through its institutions. Everybody realizes that we have a crisis of virtue in this country, so what is the best formula, what is the best prescription for this virtue vacuum that is now gripping the nation. .\......./ Os Cuinness: Well, I have three comments. First of all, I think Bill Bennett has done us an enormous service in bringing back the issue of character. To answer your

question specifically 1 the key notion for the Greeks in learning virtue was habit, or as we would put biblically, obedience. And the modeling of character, and the modeling of virtue is much more difficult than simply educating it through the schools or the media. The second comment I have is that I don't think we should be too impressed with the present fashionability of virture. You can see the skepticism surrounding the subject on the recent Newsweek cover. Anything that is caught up like that is going to have its fifteen minutes in the sun, but the real test is whether after fifteen years the discussion is still going on. The third comment I have is, if you look back at the tradition of virtues and vices, the Greeks and the Romans stressed the virtues, while the Christians and the Jews stressed the vices. Both groups discussed virtues and vices, but is was the Christians that emphasized the discussion of vices. And for all our talk of virtues today, our view of the vices today is what is being described rightly as "sin~ lite. " Sinfulness is low self~ esteem, chocolate dessert, and so on. So until there is a radical view of evil and vice, talk of virtue will mean absolutely nothing.

Michael Horton: When the Christian hears talk about virtue-if we have our theological categories, and the Reformers were great with this stuff-we have a category for this discussion of virtue in terms of civil righteousness or civil politics. The problem comes when we don't have those categories, and we think of civil righteousness as righteousness before God. So when Christians hear talk of pagan virtue, there is a sense in which we should say that even the most agnostic person can have virtue in the civic sense, but we are confusing this right now with Christianity and the Christian message. The second thing I want to say is that when it does come to virtue in the home, evangelicals once again are lacking. Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson said recently that he was speaking to a group of evangelicals who wanted prayer back in the schools and he asked how many of them prayed with their children that morning. Sadly, no one raised his hand. Everybody wants the Ten commandments in the public schools, but according to Gallup most evangelicals can't name them themselves. There is an enormous doctrinal and biblical illiteracy in the church and I think we have a lot of work in teaching and explaining what we believe and why we believe it before we try to force non~ Christians to be less than what they are. Cal Thomas: It's really a shortcut to righteousness isn't it. The government is my keeper, I shall not want... I think both the left and the right have made serious mistakes in looking to government to deliver us from our collective ills. I would like to thank the members of the panel for being with us today. 0

This round table discussion on Religion and Politics is also available on audio cassette and can be ordered by calling CHRISTIANS UNITED for REFORMATION at 800-956~2644. SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1994

"Dan Bryant

Christianity and Politics :

H ow Shall the Twain M eet?

he signs of cultural decline are everywhere: Family breakdown, violent crime, and government scandals flourish; MTV mindlessness shows no signs of abating. It is abundantly clear why folks around the country are deeply concerned about a culture apparently crashing down about their heads. Many Christians are jumping into the project of repairing culture with both feet first. That is our first mistake: Too often we enter the fray with our feet, our hands . . . anything but our minds. In an increasingly minc!~ess culture, we are playing by the rules of the world. As a result, Christians-motivated by an alleged divine mandate-are often the most aggressive, and unthinking, culture warriors of all. When we begin killing abortion doctors, it would appear to be a culture war in which Christians are the ones doing the actual shooting. We bemoan cultural decline, but church decline has opened the door to Christians getting in vol ved in all the wrong ways. Rot within the church has left Christians ill equipped to respond to cultural decay. The High Cost of our Cultural Retreat

Christians in recent decades have done little to ennoble culture. With a few notable exceptions, we nave contributed little to the advancement of the visual and performingarts, literature, and education. Yettodaywe are the most hostile and shrill critics of culture. Clueless about building, we perfect tearing down. This is not to say that much ofmodern culture should not be uprooted. It should. But the critique is enriched and made more palatable when it is accompanied by a thoughtful, persuasive case for an alternative. We have too often been like the impetuous little boy on the playground who refuses to enter into the game, who then stands on the sideline denouncing the way it is being played. He has no standing to make his case; he is the least popular child on the playground; his voice is the most offensive. Our understanding of cultural engagement seems to be that of reaction and protest. Doing our homework, developing expertise in the many fields of cultural endeavor, and winsome persuasion in the public square have been replaced by the "1,800 associations" that promise to "give' em grief in Washington" if you will just send in your $50 check. Is it any wonder that evangelicals 28

SEPTEMBER/OcrOBER 1994

and fundamentalists are now being identified in polls as the least desirable group to have as neighbors? We don't need to take back America. We need to take ourselves back. Back to authentic, historic, biblical Christianity. To take ourselves back to the reality of the precarious position of sinners before a Holy God, and the atoning work of Christ, who accomplished for sinners what they could never accomplish for themselves: peace with God. We need to return to our first love, to marvel afresh at our membership in Christ's body and the privilege that is ours of proclaiming the good news to a sin, sick world. And we need to repent for the idolatry of embracing politics as the chief means of bringing about renewal. Mind Renewal and Raw Meat

Through the ages, it has always been one of the great challenges of the church to meet the Apostle Paul's charge in Romans 12:2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. " The lack of mind renewal is painfully apparent within the church , where the "isms" are alive and well: Secularism, materialism, relativism, universalism, utilitarianism, self, esteemism and other worldly philosophies and fads have infected the modern church. The mind of too many Christians is filled with a porridge of often contradictory notions, fewofthemthoroughlybiblical. C. S. Lewisaptly describes the hodgepodge mindset of modem man in the Screwtape Letters, in which much of the correspondence from Screw tape , the senior devil, to his nephew, Wormwood, reflects Screwtape' s delight in the modem mind's loss of a regard for truth. Screwtape observes that while a few centuries ago people "still connected thinking and doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. " But the modem man is different. He writes: Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a bay, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily 'true' or 'false,' but as 'academic' or 'practical,' 'outworn' or 'contemporary'.. . Jargon, not argument is your best ally in keeping him from the Church.By the very fact ofarguing, you awake the patient's reason;and once it is awake, who can foresee the result? Even if a

modern REFORMATION

particular train of thought

can be twisted so as to end

in our favor, you will find

that you have been

strengthening in your

patient the fatal habit of

attending to universal issues

and withdrawing his

attention from the stream

of immediate sense

experiences.

It is a matter of some

I thinKdlr strategy should

~ to Ec1int Bill 8rTd Hillary c3$ an, aid c~le . . What cD you

.think, honey tÂˇ

debate as to whether the theological ignorance of today's church has ever been surpassed in history. It -is an ignorance that begets calamity throughout the Christian community, including its outlook on politics. One glaring example of the worldliness of Christian By permission of Mike Luckovich and Creator's Syndicate. thought and practice in the political arena is the embrace of utilitarian thinking, bringing them into his holy body, the church, the bride including the rationale that the ends justify the means. of Christ , which has the risen, reigning Christ even now It is increasingly the case that Christian organizations' as its head. fund raising letters are indistinguishable from those of Rome had its centuries, but it fell. The sun finally non, Christian groups. The bigger the crisis in did set on the Union Jack, as British colonialism collapsed. Washington, the better the chances of attracting money The Soviet Union slowly rotted from within. America from the hinterlands. Consequently, the truth is may yet add decades, even centuries to its experiment. exaggerated to make the crisis more extreme. We throw But it too must end, as must all the temporal kingdoms around inflammatory and often misleading slogans so as of men. It is God' s kingdom-which he alone can to incite indignation like any other political interest build-that will never end. We therefore look forward group. But of course, our misdeeds are for a good cause, 11 to the city with foundations, whose architect and and therefore permissible. Rubbish. At that point we builder is God to a kingdom that cannot be shaken. 11 have embraced the rules of the surrounding culture, Yet, even within the temporal kingdoms of men, violated the Ninth Commandment, and dishonored our God cares about temporal justice for the poor, the Lord. Our loss of a Christian mind has led us to act like oppressed, the widow. He wants public institutions and the world. Yes, that the salt is losing its savor is all too decisions to reflect his unchanging moral character. apparent among Christians in politics. Everyone, and in particular Christians, should take the Ken Myers has observed, "Motivated but misinformed ordering of the affairs of this life seriously. And, as and intellectually careless people are raw meat to citizens in a democratic Republic, Christians have a unscrupulous demagogues." And as theological illiteracy responsibility to be informed and civically involved, seeking to promote a just social order. Yes, there will reaches epidemic levels-"theology is complicated and even be believers who are called full, time to public divisive"-we hurry to champion practical action agendas, leaving oursel ves dangerously susceptible to woolly thinking policy. But we are not thereby "Christianizing" society. We may be Christians seeking to think and act and missteps in the public square. "Christianly" in the public square, but God alone Christianizes. If we fail to appreciate that we cannot Distinguo! transform America through politics, deep frustration If there is any single essential distinction that must be made by Christians in order for them to be faithfully awaits us. Our involvement with that which is temporal involved in politics it is to distinguish between the must be accompanied by an appreciation ofits temporality. kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men. While God As important as temporal justice is, it does not provide instituted the authority of the civil magistrate, he did not the remedy for the ultimate problem confronting all institute it to be a means of redemption. Its task is humans: their sinful condition before a Holy God. temporal justice; limiting the effects of wickedness. The When the sin, sick soul stops being the central kingdom of God will never be advanced by the state or problem, then God's provision of the person and work through politics. God alone accomplishes redemption, of Christ stops being the central solution. When the travails of the here, and, now become the central graciously drawing rebellious men and women to himself, SEPTEMBER! OCTOBER 1994

problem, then politics becomes the central means of providing solutions. And any such understanding of the ultimate problem and solution is inconsistent with biblical Christianity. Is it coincidence that in a secularized age the church seems to be more preoccupied with the hereÂ and- now than with the cure of souls; that pulpits across the land are platforms for social and political agendas, self- esteemism, and principles for successful livingÂ anything but the truths of a Holy God who hates sin, man's rebellion against God, and the remedy for sin found only in Christ? With a dear appreciation of the distinction between the temporal and the eternal, all Christian involvement in politics should seek to promote an understanding of the limited reach of politics. James Schall writes: "The ultimate effect of Christianity on politics is a limiting one, one that frees man by removing from politics what politics cannot deliver. In this way, politics is left to be politics and not a substitute religion. " In an age which sees politics as the ultimate show, our involvement in politics must be with an eye towards putting politics in its proper-and ultimately limited-place. Christians should provide the lead in thoughtfully and vigorously rejecting the deification of the state and the thesis that politics is ultimate. Providing that lead will be difficult, however, as long as we are guilty ourselves of the blasphemy of acting as though civil government is man's best hope for a savior. And we do precisely that when we confuse a public policy agenda with the Gospel. Where the pattern of our age is one of defining life increasingly in secular terms-with corresponding" here and now" solutions-we must guard against our thinking being conformed to this age in the form of politicization. Our culture would have us see politics in ultimate terms, and redefine the Christian mission accordingly. A secular age will always encourage the politicization of Christianity , transforming the truth of the death and resurrection of Christ according to the Scriptures into a set of political values. That such encouragement to politicize is having effect is evident in the increased proclamation of political agendas from pulpits, and Christians choosing a church on the basis of its position on abortion, neglecting entirely considerations of theological orthodoxy. We cannot hope to appreciate the distinct features of our dual citizenship within the kingdoms of God and Man unless the eternal truths of revelation form the lens through which we see all of life; unless the eternal economy is that which shapes all our thinking. Distinguishing Between the Church, Christian Groups and Individual Christians Any discussion of Christians in politics needs to distinguish between the involvement of the church, Christian groups and individual Christians. The church-as the churchÂ must never become involved in politics. It is charged with rightly proclaiming the whole counsel of God, properly administering the sacraments, and maintaining discipline. When it speaks, it does so as the visible representative of the living Christ, and it is to proclaim the deposit of truth 30

SEPTEMBER/OcrOBER 1994

which God has entrusted to it, the Holy Scriptures. To align with a political agenda is to debase the gospel, to weaken the church's prophetic voice, and to invite being treated like one of the countless political interest groups that are so easily dismissed and ignored. Overtly Christian political organizations must guard against the same dangers. As groups that hold themselves out to the public as "Christian", they will often be perceived by a watching world as "the church. " Consequently, they invite the trivialization of the Gospel as they publicly invoke divine blessing upon their pet political issues. As individuals, on the other hand, Christians must faithfully discharge their duties as citizens within whatever political system they find themselves. Being informed on the issues and voting are a necessary partofresponsible democratic citizenship, and an important contribution to public justice Distinguishing Between Various God-O rdained Governments If Christians are to have a proper regard for the place of politics in public life and work for constructive reforms in public policy, we must recognize the distinct "governments" or spheres of life instituted by God, and the ultimately limited role ofpolitics in the affairs of men. God has instituted different governments for the different spheres of life, namely the governments of family, church and state. It is a sign of our biblical illiteracy and our worldliness that Christians so frequently overlook the most vital of governments-family and church-in our race to embrace civil government and politics. We talk of family and "family values", but so often it appears to be only that-talk. Evangelicals cannot be serious about family values where it matters most-in our own homes-when surveys indicate that the amount ofMTV being watched by their own children is higher than that of the children of non- Christians. Plenty of Christians decry the removal of the Ten Commandments from courtrooms, yet surveys reveal that they do not know them themselves, much less teach them to their children. Many parents bemoan the absence of prayer in public schools, but fail to pray regularly with their own children. In their zeal to make the state an acceptable father, Christians have abdicated so many of their God- given responsibilities within the family, the "first church" in Luther's words . In their worldly rush to see virtue increased through the state-with prayers offered up to the unknown God in public schools-too many fathers fail in their duties as "first priest" within the home, neglecting regularinstruction of their children in the truths of the faith. It is ironic, but not coincidental I fear, that the age in which Christians seem to have entered into politics with greater vigor than ever before is also an age in which the institution of the Christian family is in tatters. Might it be that our infatuation with matters of public policy has come at the cost of private fidelity? Might it be that the very outlook that has converted so many within our ranks into culture warriors has left us neglecting our more basic responsibilities----suchas bringing our children up "in the training and instruction of the Lord"?

modern REFORMATION

Forget Not Sin

It is a sign of our worldliness that we have forgotten the reality of sin-the doctrine which perhaps should most inform our political philosophy and activity-as we embrace politics. We continue to speak out against their pet sins-generally homosexuality and abortion, even as we implicitly belittle the reality of sin in headlong pursuit of a legislative agenda to right all wrongs. Goodlaws are better than bad laws. But no law can breathe life back into men who are dead.in sin. We would do well to remember that it is sin that necessitates the institution of the civil magistrate to punish wrongdoing and to coerce compliance with the law, thereby restraining its evil effects. And, it is in part an appreciation of the effect of sin on all people particularly those wielding the temporal sword-that should compel us to clearly circumscribe the power of civil authority. Finally, it is a recognition that sin is the ultimate problem confronting every man, woman and child, and that government is powerless to provide an ultimate remedy that should provide impetus for Christians to work to limit the scope of politics. The 'Prerequisites

What then is required of Christians who would be faithfully involved in politics? We must start thinking, c~ltivating a Christian "mindfulness, " and maturing in our ability to see the world through the truths of general and special revelation. While all of life is to be governed by the inerrant revelation of God in Scripture, we must remember that not all of life is fully defined by the Scriptures. The composition of novocain is nowhere to be found in the Bible; neither will a critique of the recent Crime Bill be found there. How desperately the church today needs men and women with Christianly muscular minds and hearts, people in the truths of the creation order and the Scriptures, who know how to think. Do we understand the difference between a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion? Do we know how to construct sound syllogisms? Do we know how to marshal data to support persuasive arguments? Are we equipped to engage in a process of rational reflection and analysis regarding the issues of the day, interpreted and guided by a systematic understanding of the Scriptures? I have too often heard Christians make sloppy arguments that have out~ of~ context Bible verses tacked on to them-as if that were an acceptable substitute for using their minds and doing their homework. Theologized minds, historical and philosophical literacy , analytical skills, and personal character befitting a follower of Christ-these are the prerequisites for faithful Christian involvement in the public square. 0 Dan Bryant worked at the US Department of Justice during the Reaga;t and ~ush Administrations (198701992). He is currently the Assoczate DLrector of the First Freedom Coalition, a public policy advoc~ or~a~iza~on . that promotes public safety and reform in Amenca s cnmmal ]ustLce system. He received his Bachelor and Juris ~octor deg;ees from. Am~rican University in Washington, D.C. and hLs Master s degree m HLstory from Oxford University.

Faith & Law Society

Fifteen Propositions

DonE. Eberly PROPOSITON ONE AMERICA, AND INDEED THE ENTtRE WORLD, IS IN THE MIDST OF MOMENTOUS CHANGE, and I don't mean that as a political slogan. It \S change we must understand, because it win profoundly affect America's prospects for renewal. In addition to being at the end of a century and a millennium, the entire West is in the midst of deep convulsions relating to the-death of East. West polarization and to the pI:9found structur;:tl shifts taking place in our society and economy due to the transition from the industrial to the inform,ation age. The disconnect between technological prowess and economic might on the one harid, and America's deepening social and personal disorder on the other, will produce increasingly painful paradoxes~

PROPOSITION TWO AMERICA IS IN GRAVE DANGERAT PRESENT. I say grave, because _our,s is predoririnantly a cultural crisis, and thus one concerriing which we have little experience, or even understanding. In talking about culture, I want to be clear that I am not talking·about culture wars or cultural politics. CultlIre is not a subsidiary of politics. It ismore the case that politics is the dependent variable; it is more shaped by than it shapes the culture. ' The greatest evidence for me that the culture is on a .separate track came in the 1980s, when in the midst of surging economic growth, American successes abroad, and renewed patriotism at home, many of the cultural indicators went steeply southward. I will describe culture on two levels, the visible and invisible. On the surface, it is the enveloping adversarial culture that offends our senses every day: ' it is the. palpable tension and visible disorder we see in our streets; it is collapsing institutions. On the deeper and more important level, it is personal disorder rooted in .a weakening of the basic ideas and values by which we order our lives. The purpose of culture is to create personal and social order through institutions like the family and community. Much ofthat sense of purpose is no 10ngeI: "in the aie'of our culture. _. We live irl a culture that has essentially become anti~ culture. It is a culture tha,t has been driving toward revolutionary nihilism. We have witnessed a relentless rage against the content and symbols of personal meaning and order. The results: despair, hopelessness, alienation, and -widespread destruction of connectedness that springs. from cQmmunity. Cultural radicalism has one aim: destroying all human boundarj,es and all restraints that operate upon man' s passions and wants. This is not the civilized freedom ofMa,dison, Hamilton, Jefferson and Jay: it is the insanity ofRousseau, Marx and Freud. Man was created for society-for community-and whenthe disorder produced by a false freedom reaches an intolerable scale, man has always sought liberation from liberty and its. burdens. Once completely free from the shackles of religion and tradition, man searches for a new et.nancipation; this time from the resulting tyrannical disorder around him. '

PROPOSITION THREE WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE CULTURE NOT JUST INVENT A NEW POLITICS OF CULTURE. Ourresponse to the cultured despisers SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 1994

of religion must not be to become the religious despisers of culture. Our cultural conflIcts will not be resolved by culture .wars; our disagreements will not be settled by ballots or bullets (I include the latter because some seem willing to contemplate its eventuality.) I don't believe the America we know would ever again be reborn out of that kind of domestic conflict. These battles will have to be fought predominantly in the value~ shaping institutions of culture: media, entertainment, academia, the arl:$, philosophy, law, and so on, because they ate battles over ideas and vaiues,npt simply battles between politicians.

PROPOSITION FOUR THE ANSWER TO TODAY'S SOCIAL AND POLITICAL FRAGMENTATION IS NOT ADVANCING AN ALTERNATIVE IDEOLOGY. Ideology is the problem, not the answer. One cannot fight fire with fire. True conservatism, as Kirk has reminded us, is the negation of ideology. It is the patient, painstaking attempt to nourish the kinds of things that politics cannot supply. Ideology does not explain reality ,. and it does not inspire a broad following today. Peoplesimplydo not believe sweepingtheories about anything. They've heard them all, and none of them have changed social reality, nor can they.

PROPOSITION FIVE PUBLIC POLICY WILL BE KNOWN MORE FOR ITS LIMITATIONS THAN ITS ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Public policy cannot touch the deeper roots ofAmerican disorder. Politics serves a vital function, but it is mostly defensive. You could pass the entire pro, family or pro, business agenda tomorrow and it would take you about five percen t of the distance you want to go. The greatest need of our time is to contain the state, which has subsumed all too many of the functions of civil society, and to struggle to repair our weakened mediating structures: the family, neighborhood, and the voluntary associations ofall kinds that mediate between the individual and the state. This is primarily where our positive vision and contribution must come; not in competing political programs. Michael Novak has said that the movement that comes to understand this will govern for a long time, so one could say that embracing broader strategies for American renewal is good for one's politics as well. I am all for political and civic responsibility, and I applaud those of you who have responded to the call. But it is just that-a caUing-'- it is not a crusade. The best politics is an honest and realistic politics.

PROPOSITION SIX THE GREATEST NEED IN POLITICS IS TO SIMPLY RESTORE THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR INSTITUTIONS IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC, lest we wake up some day and realize that they are but empty shells. We should be sobered by the disillusionment of the public toward the institutions in which we serve; and where necessary we should repent of our culpability of turning an ,honorable profession into an expensive game of calculation and exploitation. We must restore citizenship, not shrink it by expanding our representative . fimction; this is the definition ofempowerment, by the way, whether it is a person's 32

SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 1994

political or economic efficacy you havein mind improving. Leadership must be restored by adopting a policy oftotal integrity politics: servant leadership, complete accountability, and doing aWay with anything th at undermines public trust. Leadership in the 1990s and beyond must surtunon forth solutions from the people, not just from those who represent themunder the capitol dome.

PROPOSITION SEVEN IN YOUR POLITICS, RECOGNIZE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHRISTIAN NATION, if there ever was such a thing in the true~t sense. You Iive in a decidedly post, Christian America and must picture yo~rself as working in Athens, .not Jerusalem. Donot assume that vast majorities currently accept your presuppositions, or even more, importantly, that shared . assumptions will automatically con vert to your legislative positions on everything. Contrary to all the talk about America being incorrigibly religious, the percentage of Americans who have fixed and firm religious beliefs, who believe in notions of absolute truth, and who are prepared to live and act accordingly, is probably closer to ten percent.

PROPOSITION EIGHT THERE ARE SERIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN THE MODEL OF POLITICS THAT HAS BECOME CALLED THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT ( a term used by its leaders, not just secular critics). For one, as an organizing model , it is divisive even within the philosophical house in which it occupies a room. Secondly, it fundamentally lacks moral and cultural capital becau,se its agenda aims to change a society from which it has spent the better part of a century withdrawing, and you cannot make up on politics what you've lost in the broader society. Third, it has proven to be out ofstep with a public which, though concerned about values, is also concerned about polarization and gridlock. Fourth, it needlessly polarizesÂˇ every debate over values against believers, making it harder, not easier, to get an honest debate about values going. Fifth, it paradoxically makes it harder, not easier, for believers to become elected because they are seen as agents ofsome religious conspiracy to take over parties and the government.

PROPOSITION NINE . MANY OF THE TACTICS AND ATTITUDES OF CHRISTIAN POLITICALACTIVISM HAVE SIMPLYNOT BEEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTIVIST'S OWN STATED BELIEFS The believer has a solernn duty to judge his conduct by his own transcendent claims. If you are a Christian, you have given up many of your liberties; you are not free to confuse ends and means, b:,:ause they are one in the same.

PROPOSITION TEN WEMUSTUNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BElWEEN THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY. Here I do not mean to echo the distorted case that has been made for church, state separation, which we all know to be a recent contrivance. I am suggesting that we engage the faith more effeCtively in all aspects of public life, including politics. Many have come to see society and culture as a subsidiary ofthe state, This is potentially dangerous to both the church and the state. It positions faith on the political

modern REFORMATION

playtrlg " fieJ~ · as , just, an6th~r

ititen~st~ ~other ,faction,

': dtScipl~sto 'a' ra,dic;'~rC01llIl1itmen:itd;the ~gdom, withiI;l:, '

,' an?fher ,dam?,~g.iriob. joiti0g' toe C~cQphon:fof d~m<Jhds '

. ~.ot1e ~£whose side" effec~, ttQtp.ttme to ,tiroeand place 't~

, f~re:xpan<:l~'d lights:, ',," " .", " " " ".,' ',,',,' , pl~ce jh'hiStory;. has ,oee,n. strong ciY1liz~tiQns. '.

'. " , ThisJs aprbfotin41YinlPo~ttheological POirlt. 'M~ch~{ .PROPOSITION lHIRTEEN ' " ,

the,cm1fusion in the arenaofreligipn,andppplic life has etruUlated'. ,", ')VE :MUST DEVELOP A,NEW ., PUUtIC PHilOSOPHY', "from th1§'particular ar~a oftheCjl<Jgici1 ,poverty.," , " . , : ,whiChto the 'greatest~xtent po&sible 'advances a vision for , "" "'Bri~girig darity to,'tonfusionwill'come in resurrecting >. the,.CQnurton gqod and to the,leas(extent pgssibleenc6ur8;ge$ ' " ., ~ldertheolQgicaland phnosqphlca'l truths:hke cO,mmon ' an'lIus aga~sttl1etr1"·~ent~lity.The~o~i¢wwe haveiIlmind . gqrce; Jike " nar:ut~l ,law and ' naturil:l ·Justice,.., and the ", creatirlgisonet~at,rii~ywQuld'drea~of1iyingin:,inc,hldmg . ,col1cept devdoped~0. cil:refullyhy :th~· Cathqlics termed . .mos,,',t,.,',' ,llrl.,b.~.1, i.e,V'ers.Apub, Hc .' pl\itoso.,,phy 'is. .committed to'. "~\lbs1diarrty." . , ' : . ., ju~ticef0r all r not "ju,st us"; it'is'¢ommitted :to inlproving, ,'. J'ROPQ~ITIOIS[ ELEVE~ .' /. notdestroytrlgAmer~ca·' s heritage 'ofdemocratit pluralism; ," WEMHSTviEW'~HE WOlUDTH1! 'W AYGODVlEWS{tis, cOITunitted ,to preserving' ~eli.¢a'sbasic s6cial .aqd ." THE,WORLD; rrlSJOSTBHT IT:lstQYED::G~'s lo.ve · political creed,without ,'substit~ting th~ .cause of ~erica " ~tr1br~~es'. anof9~~at:ion:" t1Je '~eae~e~ea ,and , unr~qeemeq. . for the c~~se of Christ. ' '. " DO,n0t have an attitude towar¢! ym,If' neighbor that God , :PROPOSlliON 'FOURTEI;N' , ~hiirt,self do'es not~sh~n~.~e . are .to viewrhe world Gq~' s· . .' WE MUST DEVELOP .; \ NEWCOMMO~ IAN~UAGE way~' anel do battleWithit God~. $:way~ .p.ot ciurway. ' ..l"OTAtK ABOiJTB~ltVAlUI;S; LA~GlJAOtMORlt .. :tker~ is no scriptural basis'for a:po!iticS' ofparari6ja,, ~ R<:>OTED1N:AME~!CkSCI~9·TJtADITION.f.mert<;afs " .~uspicicm-, "resentmenJ, , an:g~ror. Yengeilice" There is, 'up "J 4g(!0, Chii$tian'" tradition,Is an important Qne topreser've, scripJuraLs\1ggest'i~n' Clhywq~reth~t~hri&ttan dut)!'incltides" Qut one'.mustke~p in:m~dth~' grearJin,litati0flS 9farg~h-ig : t~King 'over·sec,ular, system$inChrjSt'sri.~me. ,. As a servant ft;9~thestan'dp6int,of r~ve,al~(f .trlJth; ·· , of J<:s,u~ ' Chris~;'·t1:w:" beli~ver "r~preseuts anofue~ ' ()r4e~~ . ,The cultumI elite, re~in openrebeI1idn~gaihst: religious cl'tiQtner master; ,another , daiJ:n: ". When, h,¢ 'becomes· a ' ,~atltfloJjty a11d:lJeliefbecauset}1eyare driven by a radical desire t6 ' ' : ..d(sciple,of Christ, he sacrifices f~revet h~ , freedom to'do or" buildasOc:ietyiriwhichmaIlisfree to escape'any limits on human :say anytl~irlg' that ~~uld' c~nflict~thhis lotd' s ~hata~ter. , , . ·~11 ;;indeXpresSion. It d~, verYfitt!.egooo tobattte these cultutal:r'. , A~ the:late' 'Catholic. theQ~bgianJohn, Courthey Murry , · elii:es'Ont~rcis'.t:l1at onlY'retrUoicerheirp~ej~di~ arid~ e"plained ii;we should becarefuftosepatate out 'rel~iious ' .tloteits~ereo1We$. , The."better ,appro~~ is,to'si1tlplyatte~pt to B~it:~and our I?atri,ottc,faith, M~n()(subriierge 0n int,o the. " f0icethemtoContr0nttheco~quentesofth~irownl"hil~phy;:" other." Why? :So · that' peoplea~efre.~ r,0a,¢'ceptour faith ' It~th~y"n~t:'YQv:;':'who~hQul(HJetheiSsue. , ~agem,~eSa ', ".wi~hout, havll1g,tb" a~c:eptour ,p~litics! andyiseNers,a. ~.,. b4i; .bIidifferen~hete. ,' ~w' tl1~eiSsues predate theriseofsec~larismjpAmetiCq. Read ,. THE GREATEST NEEI),OFALt I0D~V IN OUR P~BUC :"[()Cque.ville'sSection6fith~l"Ql~ .oHeligionin Ametica, ashe " tilE' ('S'; 1.O' 5;JM·P(y 'RESTO'R E ·TRANSCENDENT Qbseryedititl the,t830s: :Th:e'religiQvs leaders oftheday avoideq: ,FOlJl~n)ATlONS. The~wertosec~i:nisnot'sect~riaIr~~} ,' , c~rfuJnforrnsofpo1itiCaI aff<iirsbecalJs,e they'feared d1a,tthebitter ~ .. the ~swer'to Re;:l$OI1 wi~out 900;.iJi'1)ot 09d without r~ason;; ",anit1lositi~ that,pOlitical <mflict et}gend~re~·wQuld be,directed theans~erto'coetcive u,topiani$misryoteoercive traditionalism.. . ~gciir:Stth~ Church ai)d its gospel. Itisprotecting thegoSpehhat :The'~er lies ip discovering thepfofoun~ truth ofthefounding , ", . musr:geou,rpriWnyai1n, .and s'adlyt:llere <¥e many inAmeric:afrithersemOO,diedp~cularJy.in.tl1~D«larati6n~nndePende,nce~ , .• whO','don!:t s~em to know .the difference be~een, the gospel of Th~. £raniliig :ptOduced , a; .Puricitl"I:;9c~eilri' Syntheslsw1;riCll/ ':,Chiisr3l'ld American,CpnserVativ:eideologyandpatrioti~causes, . .' ' ~9opted,,~~ither ,seculariSm :not setiat,ianism" 'but s~tcled Jot·a " N~,one has everexplainedit h~~tterthanJ ..'S. 'Eliot: · 'bas!c'act:ept:a.nce,dfthe higherJ~wI'OQted ifiGod;to whom We ,,. ','The , c~urch :risk$ roSihgiis$Pf~t1illlpt:)Wer·.41)d'aut1ien#(;it';l'" . are ~~' ~l~tely ~cCQW1tabl¢,. 'l~G~~~f ~erica ~the ~" ,. q,{jhetl it uncriticall~ and unre5ero.J~4ty aligns itielfwith ~paral, ~~rkQfth~'chUICh; lq:ying fOl,ll)dati9nS ill .ttanscend~nt reality'is, . pa1Jisar(movert1~t,s. To ,t;onfu$e these realms)s to confuse ,the ' ',the workpf~ concerned Api~riCat:ls. 'Mat}.yaround us share our . .~ perman~t wif/lthe transitory, 'theab~4Iuiewit.hthe,contingerit. eop:¢m overth~cOlla~ of~~rlegal ~tru.cturesdue to apOlitical PROPOSITI~N lWELVE.,<., ' .~'. " ' aof,ilegal meoty ~t locates motanty,itl n~th~g highe{ Hr..n" ",.,,~ ,WE MUST REPlACE lHE~ TRIBAl-MENTALlTY THAT majority 'rule. " . '''', UNAVOIOAOLV IMPl,lES.'THAI:.ITIS 'OUR.,' RIGMTS, ,· ,',Finally, we nm~~' ~ .reffiitld<:~ ?¥ ~~Mrc(j;Neuhaus"s y, j ,.

II · ,

•

' ,

"," ..

":'

, OUR'NTERESTS"OROU~))EMANDSTHATAREIRf / !·, ~dYicefotoperatirig~'the:ptlbtrQsqllaI"e.":Wesaid."thefirstthing,,':',

':rsSUE~ ' arid which suggeSfsthar,: 'fie ,have· some :~l?edaJ,;;{y,to.{f~cO~izi/ql,x)ut publicJieiS::' ~t:';pl!bHc life'js not the first "', , dispensation to·rlrl~ ove.~otl:reis;·, . ·,. ' \( . ,: ,',.' , " .....,;/ :::t!1ing.H rhefe~ybe'}agr~ter:,b:~ger today for our sptrltmil ', . When bettevers '~re 'Qrg~.lZ¢~i!}toChrisH~ inter~$:t,' " ,,~~~is ~ for Qutpoliti~ prop0$alS~ 'The most revol~tionaiY ,,; ' grQups, ·theys(iggest to'a watcnihgwc),rlcl rhat tl}e 8osMlof . .' P9.werlhatcouldbeunleashediri'tothe world todaywould be that ' / ChriSt is interch~geabl~ witkte:n)poral polftks, moraliry ,wlucheomesfrot;il a lifestyfe ofJove" ,fotgiveness and humility. " and,cultural attit:ude~. The', chutch'has- incteasingl'Y 'been " , R~oogn~as any number ,0fcMmpions .of freedom ·in. the,. ·: ~~.eh as :a peddler of 'id,e~lQgy; ') lot a,' sourt:e 'of pers~;;al ., 'f;~rffierSovietUni~ andRastbi~Kre~d---,that ultimately rede,f!1ptiori and socialr~storatiq9' , :', .. , . " . , " theun~:of good and evi1f1ow" :r!6rough,c~ses, pq~m9~r" " JeSus 4!d not call hi$ di$~iples,ipeifber,thetlt$t'oNwent;iedl '. :~es'or ki~logies; .but ~Qwn 'eveiyJ'}uman heart. ~:f.': "--__......"""_.... cent:ufy. , ,iO'puilddvilizations ,or.~ ~ut~t~wars; ' ,h~ callecr,hjs' <

, . '.

_ _""",,,",_ ' ......._ _ _- - - " ' - - - _