There are two things one does not talk about in polite
company, religion and politics. I happen
to have a passion for both, and to various degrees, my professional life has
moved in both circles. Integrating these
passions well then, is something I care about, and that leads to the question
of how that should be done.
My goal here is not to set out a treatise for all people at
all times. Rather, I just want to share
some thoughts based on my journey.
On the one hand, I do not think there should be a separation
of church and state that extends to one’s own soul. Nor do I see the state as the primary vehicle
for extending Christ’s reign on earth. How then should a Christian live an
integrated life when it comes to religion and politics? And if I don’t see the state as the primary
vehicle for extending Christ’s reign on earth, why care about it all? I think the prophet Jeremiah gave a beautiful
answer to this question, when he addressed the Jews who had been carried away
into exile. He said, “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have
carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you
too will prosper.”
So how do we do that?
Here are a couple big ideas I want to lace together to answer that
question. One, is the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Another is the need to integrate faith and
vocation. A third is Kuyper’s idea of
sphere sovereignty, the idea that the state, the church, civil society, (that
is, non-profits and the like) and the family each have their own sphere in
which they are uniquely called or sovereign.
Each sphere owes their ultimate allegiance to Christ, but one does not
rule over the other. This was an
especially useful template for Kuyper, as he sought to lead in an early 20th
century European context.
From time to time, Christians criticize one another for
allowing politics to distract from the gospel, or in the alternative, for not
being sufficiently aware of the gospel’s implications for society. These critiques are sometimes partisan. Most pastors recognize that each Sunday they
speak to audiences that are divided on what the implications of the Gospel are
for our public life. Although, as the
nation becomes increasingly partisan, and sometimes divides by zip code,
pastors may also realize they are surrounded by people who largely agree with
them.
So how do we pull all of this together in a principled way?
Here is how it works for me.
It need not work this way for everyone.
But I think it is worth all of us giving this some thought.
As a Christian, nothing is more important to me than the
Gospel of the Kingdome of God. When I
wore an official pastoral hat, I took care to rarely talk about politics,
because I did not want anything to distract from what I felt was of chief
importance. While I certainly believe in
the priesthood of all believers, and in some sense feel that pastors are no
different then the rest of us, the fact is that pastors have unique role in
Christ’s church, and politics often are a distraction from the Gospel.
However there are exceptions to the rule. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote on this
eloquently, in his famous Letter from a Birmingham jail, where he called on
pastors to take a stand for justice and equality, and not sit silently by. From time to time, there arises an issue so
important, like overt prejudice, or the persecution of believers of any faith,
that it warrants the church taking a stand.
It is important that if the church chooses to do so, that her internal
and external life and witness be consistent with its stand. (See John Howard Yoder’s The Christian Witness
to the State.) It must be cautious not to get drawn into too many political
battles. But there are exceptions. Sometimes she needs to take a stand.
Different than the visible or organized church, is the
individual believer. (There is a worthwhile conversation to be had on the
nature of the church vis a vis individual Christians, the church global and the
church local, but I don’t want to get into that here.) There is a reawakening in the church today on
the topic of integrating vocation and faith.
Also, for some time, Christians have spoken of the need not be silent,
and that all people take their values into the public square. In any given trade or vocation, Christians
should be thinking about how their faith, and the values that come from it,
should influence their public life. It then holds, that Christians with a sense
of calling in the areas of public policy or politics should also integrate
their faith and vocation.
Note the distinction here.
The church is different than any given believer. Particular Christians
can be involved in politics and public policy as their passions and calling dictate,
but this is different than the church taking such a stand. Furthermore, Christians should be cautious
how closely they link a particular stance with any sense of Biblical
mandate. Sometimes one can take that
position, but it must be done very cautiously.
So let me be clear.
The gospel of the kingdom of God is of chief importance to me, and I see
it as operating on the highest plain. At
an altogether different level is the need to integrate faith and vocation, and
well below that is the details of public policy and politics. I care about all of these things, but I see
them as being on different plains conceptually, and of different degrees of
importance. And yet, real life works
best when it is integrated. I believe that
the way to integrate these things is by advocating for a consistent set of
values in all spheres of life, while recognizing that each of us have different
roles as individuals, and that the church, the state, civic life, and the
family each occupy different spheres. There
is a time and place for everything.
Interestingly, this is not always clear on social media. We post articles about all kinds of topics
side-by-side. It is easy to lose an
sense of proportionality in the importance we place on things. Jokes, politics, cats, and the Gospel, they
all look similar on social media.
Here is an example of how I do this. The Bible is clear that we are to care for
the sojourner and the alien. Certainly
we should do that in a literal sense, caring for those who cross our path. It does not however follow, that on a
continuum of reasonable public policy
options, (moving from left to right) that one options is conclusively more
Biblical than the other. One could argue
that after careful study, that person believes that one approach will best
serve the needs of immigrants, (I have my opinion) but that would not be the
same as stating that such an approach was the
Christian approach.
In practice, my goal is to first understand the values that
the Bible calls us to give attention to, and then, at a different level, to advocate
for the public policy positions I feel best encapsulate those values. That is, the positions I take are influenced by my understanding of my
faith. But they are not based solely on
my faith. They are also based on research, science, and hopefully wisdom.
Here is another example.
A civil engineer’s science is not a matter of faith. But she is usually called upon to build
things that have an impact on others.
(Some have written whole dissertations on a theology of the built
environment.) Where her science of building intersects with other people or the
environment (and when wouldn’t it) there will usually be a value proposition. And here, her faith should influence what she
does. A bridge may need to be built in
a way that minimizes its impact on a particular neighborhood, or the
environment. The engineer who does that
well, and uses her creativity to help facilitate that goal is integrating her
faith and vocation. The same approach
holds for public policy. My faith does not directly dictate the details, but it
does inform the values I bring to the table.
Some Christians have a calling to serve their whole
community in a public way, as a city planner, politician, prosecutor, or civil
engineer. Daniel and Nehemiah are
examples of this in the Bible. The challenge for those of us in public roles is
to hold our values central, and not get carried away with a short sighted,
often partisan view.
No comments:
Post a Comment