My pastor and I have a friendly tiff going on. He says that Jesus was strictly a-political; therefore Christians should abstain from politics completely. I say that Jesus challenged violent, poverty-inducing, socio-political structures throughout his life and ministry; therefore Christians have a duty to advocate for peace and to speak out for the poor and the oppressed. Both of us are hardheaded, and neither of us cedes much in our debates, but we always walk away as friends, because at the end of the day there’s a key component to the discussion that we both agree on: The Bible is not a public policy manual!
I realize that might feel like an outrageous statement to some. After all, the first five books of the Bible are commonly referred to as the “Books of the Law.” These books contain legal codes that governed the every-day life of the ancient children of Israel, ranging from personal hygiene to how to prosecute thieves and murderers. Furthermore, the Hebrew prophets railed against the kings of their day for making “unjust laws” and “oppressive decrees” (Isaiah 10:1), implying that there is such a thing as an unjust law—and woe to the legislators who write them!
Over and over the Scriptures reveal a God who cares deeply about the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the alien, yet strangely the man who Christians believe embodies the will of God in action (Jesus) refused to take sides in the bitter partisan divisions of His day. Jesus welcomed both zealots and tax collectors as members of his inner circle. And when two brothers asked Jesus to solve an inheritance dispute, He responded by saying, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” (Luke 12:14). If Jesus intended his followers to establish themselves as the moral guardians of society, He had a funny way of showing it.
The pattern continues with the Apostle Paul. The indisputable case for followers of Jesus not involving themselves in judging those outside the Church comes from a passage in I Corinthians 5:12-13, where Paul says, “ What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” Paul clearly established a demarcation between Christians judging matters within the community of believers (allowed) and matters outside the community of believers (not allowed). At the very least, this suggests that Christians who think they can impose what they perceive as “Biblical values” on secular society are—more often than not— wrong. There’s simply no way to translate the Bible into concrete public policy, at least not without a considerable degree of ambiguity.
For example, most of my conservative friends are convinced that they have a Biblical mandate to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, even though abortion is only mentioned once in Scripture, and the reference is—oddly—the Prophet Jeremiah cursing the man at his mother’s side for not aborting him! (Jeremiah 20:14-18)…and gay marriage was hardly an issue on the radar in Biblical times. The Laws of Leviticus prescribe a massive redistribution of wealth every 50 years by canceling people’s debts and restoring property to original owners, yet many Christians are convinced—right or wrong— that justice for the poor is a matter of individual charity alone, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is duped by the devil. And while we’re talking about what’s Biblical and what’s not Biblical, why isn’t anyone suggesting that America as a nation love its enemies and turn the other cheek?
Come to think of it, maybe my pastor is right for refusing to use the power of the pulpit to trumpet a political agenda. I live in San Juan County, New Mexico, a place where the average evangelical pastor is about 20 degrees to the right of Rush Limbaugh, yet at Sunrise Christian Church; I’ve never heard a sermon that could be misconstrued as a cleverly disguised political endorsement—and the congregation is better off for it.
Because my pastor refuses to drag the church into the bitter divides of the culture war, there exists a wide diversity of political and theological persuasions within the congregation. People can walk into church and feel genuinely welcomed as they are, without having to conform to some mind-numbing group think. As a member of the worship team, I look out into the congregation every Sunday and see people with vastly different political, cultural, and theological beliefs, all worshiping God. It’s refreshing!
Pastor David, even though I tease you with my Talking Tom app, telling you that neutrality always benefits the oppressor and never the oppressed, the reality is I’m glad that you’ve created an atmosphere at the church where nothing is more important than Jesus Christ and him crucified. As you know, my wife and I and our two boys are moving to Albuquerque this year. Thank you for being there when we needed it the most.
We’re really going to miss you.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
Isn’t our national government prevented from establishing our moral values and from interfering with our moral choices by the First Amendment, so long as no great public interest is at stake? Aren’t our State and local governments similarly restrained under the Fourteenth Amendment?
If this is the case, isn’t it incumbent upon citizens, churches, and, perhaps, other institutions to condemn and oppose such transgressions of our Supreme (secular) Law when they occur?
On the other side, isn’t it true that Jesus, the model for all humankind, never advocated that government take care of the unfortunate; but always insisted that we, as individuals, do? Clearly, he never condemned public assistance to the needy; but isn’t that because His kingdom was not of this Earth?
It’s not “ . . . . whatever governments did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, it did for me.” Instead, it’s “. . . . whatever YOU did for . . .”
Governments neither seek, nor require, salvation. Only humans do. We are instructed to store our treasures in Heaven. Governments are not so instructed. Nor, in rendering unto Caesar, do we gain salvation. The Christ also made that clear, didn’t he?
Is there a conflict between these two sides of a coin? I think not.
Do conflicts arise when government seeks to legislate, regulate, or opinionate on our morality? Certainly.
Does the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution allow government to build highways, dams, electric lines, parks, and canals that benefit all of us? Surely.
Does the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution allow government to tax the fortunate few to give to the unfortunate few? I doubt this was ever the intention of any of its framers.
To Jesus, and anyone at that time, the state was also the religion. It's good we no longer have that, but what we do have that Chris somehow misses, is We, the People are the government. Chris even goes so far as to compare our government to Caesar. We have no emperor or king granting us privileges. There is no separation of citizens and government in our American tradition.
It only becomes separate in a sort of dis-American ideology. You can't separate our duty, Christian or otherwise, to one another by erecting a phantom of a separate government.
The First Amendment says nothing about and isn't about legislating morality. Because you can't legislate religious beliefs doesn't mean you can't legislate moral beliefs. You can't separate law and morality anyway except to point out immoral laws. The Establishment Clause is, in that aspect, that our laws aren't based on religious laws or doctrine or belief.
You're wrong about General Welfare, Chris, or what the Founders would have thought or did think. General Welfare is a general power, enabling the people, through legislation, to do many things, as any government must, for the betterment of the country and citizens. It was spoken about that way when it was debated and drafted and ratified. You're trying to project your thoughts on The Founders and the Constitution without any foundation for what you say. The General Welfare clause is not unlimited, but it was never meant to suffer the limits you place upon it. You don't bother to ask what a couple of hundred million or so of your fellow citizens think.
What The Founders would have told you if they had the opportunity is that We, the People get to figure that out on our own, with our minds and in our time. They would have chuckled at your ancestor worship.
if a believer wants no part of gay marriage, the same option is available
the problem develops when people want to impose THEIR interpretation of a particular religion on everyone else, religious or secular.
this is taliban-esque, but the irony is completely lost on catholics, fundamentalist christians, and fringe cult religious movements.
the constitution says our government shall not have a national religion. it doesn't say, however, that people should be forced to purchase health insurance which pays for abortions, in direct violation of their beliefs.
the constitution says our government shall not have a national religion. it doesn't say, however, that people should be forced to purchase health insurance which pays for abortions, in direct violation of their beliefs.
Two things:
One: there are lots of things the constitution does not say…but that does not mean we cannot do them. The constitution, for instance, does not say that people may be taxed and their tax money used to buy weapons that will be used to kill people in violation of their beliefs…but it can be done.
Two: Because abortion is a “violation of their beliefs” does not mean that furnishing insurance with specified coverage is also a “violation of their beliefs.” No one is going to force anyone to get an abortion. The bishops and all the complainers ought to just get over it!
And kudos Frank.
.
In my Humanities art class, we had a discussion about politics and religion and how they're beginning to mix and how some say Obama isn't "Christian enough". (I'm not an Obama supporter - like I said, I don't like any political candidates) but when it comes to government, religion shouldn't be a concern of it. The morals should be the important part, but it seems we've forgotten that. I feel Jesus tried to keep things fair between everyone - even in punishment - and today, so many laws and punishments are unfair and moreover, unjust. It's just a losing battle. Great post! (:
I have been returning to this faith of my fathers by degrees as I have slowly learned it can be practiced with out all the fearful and prejudiced trappings that surrounded it when it was taught to me as a child.
So grateful to writers like yourself and other Progressive Christian bloggers. For many years I didn't know there was a such thing as left leaning Christians. I just thought I was a black sheep, outcast, unclean. Of course, my Southern Baptist family did nothing to dissuade me from that conclusion.
Reading that others are able to practice their faith without resorting to fearmongering and spreading prejudice has allowed me to follow the Jesus I thought I knew through the stories of Him I read as a child.
It's a process. Posts like this help.
Thanks, and rated.
And, I always thought Jesus was against exceptionalisim in any form that is why he surrounded himself by an array of followers.
You make me want to go to church. I left at 18 years of age.