The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

SAET Blog

Political Theology Posts

• February 7, 2013 by Jason Hood

  Popper

  Karl Popper vs. Hegel, “Christian Marxists,” “Great Man” approaches to history and liberal Protestant use of the great myth of Progress and Democracy as Eschatology. All of these approaches, and all of our other efforts at producing an account of humanity in history, only result in assorted histories “of power politics”:

  The theory that God reveals Himself and His judgment in history is indistinguishable from the theory that worldly success is the ultimate judge and justification of our actions; it comes to the same thing as the doctrine that history will judge, that is to say, that future might is right . . .

  To maintain that God reveals Himself in what is usually called ‘history’ . . . is indeed blasphemy; for what really happens within the realm of human lives is hardly ever touched upon by this cruel and at the same time childish affair.

  The life of the forgotten, of the unknown individual man; his sorrows and his joys, his suffering and death, this is the real content of human experience down the ages.

  If that could be told by history, then I should certainly not say that it is blasphemy to see the finger of God in it. But such a history does not and cannot exist; and all the history which exists, our history of the Great and the Powerful, is at best a shallow comedy.

  I think it’d be better to take the both/and, as what he says in context pushes God away from sovereignty over “great men” and dictators. But given his historical context, I really appreciate the protest.

  If (Redemptive) History doesn’t impact, contemplate, direct, and ultimately transform the mundane, it’s not a Christian account; and if it doesn’t encompass a judgment outside of history, it’s not a Christian account; and if every deed isn’t judged and every sorrow and complaint addressed and every question answered, it’s not a Christian account.

  I post this on my wife’s birthday. She’s a spectacular person, but “history” will probably never see a glimpse of it–unless something goes badly wrong with me or our children! And in God’s story, she matters.

  Categories: General | History | Jason Hood | Political Theology

  0 Comments

• October 24, 2012 by Matthew Mason

  Some thoughts on politics at election time

  I had the privilege of preaching on Psalm 72 on Sunday. Given the election season, and my location on Capitol Hill, it was inevitable that I addressed politics more generally and the election more specifically in relation to the loving, just kingship of the Lord Jesus Christ. I had some hard things to say, and felt the need for some prolegomena. I had a fourteen point sermon, the first ten of which were in the introduction. The whole sermon is here.

   

  1. I love you all very much. It’s a privilege to serve as your pastor. I care very deeply about you, and what I say isn’t motivated by antagonism towards anyone at our church. I even love those of you who disagree with my politics!

  2. I love this country. It’s been a wonderful place to live for my family to live for 3 years. It’s a great place to raise children. There are many things about American culture and politics that I love. But love requires that we speak the truth.

  3. I’m not an American…I’m a Christian. I know these things aren’t necessarily in conflict, but they can be. So in some ways it’s easier for me to think about politics over here than it was in the UK. And being a Christian profoundly affects the way I think about politics in general and this election in particular.

  4. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I don’t fit comfortably anywhere on the US political spectrum, anymore than I fit comfortably on the British political spectrum. This may just mean I’m a pretentious snob. But it also means I don’t want to be misheard as advocating for a particular party in what I say. There are important political principles for us as Christians, but the application of those principles in the voting booth is a matter of prudence and prayerful Christian wisdom.

  5. Listen to Jesus’ words “Whoever loves father and daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt 10:34) We could easily add “whoever loves country more than me, whoever loves political party more than me.” There is a healthy love for country, a healthy patriotism. But there’s a wrong kind of love that’s a rejection of Jesus. So perhaps the healthiest thing you can say to yourself as you go to vote is, “I’m not an American, I’m a Christian. I’m not a Republican, I’m a Christian. I’m not a Democrat, I’m a Christian.”

  6. You’ve been brought up to believe that the powers of government derive from the consent of the people. That’s wrong. If I had time I could give a more nuanced account of this. But at best that’s deism. It’s certainly anti-Christian. The powers of government, the authority of government, derive from the Lord Jesus Christ. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. God has set him over all the nations of the earth, and to him all kings, rulers, and presidents should submit. The President serves at the pleasure of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is a man under authority. This is also true for the legislative and judicial branches of government.

  7. You’ve also been taught to believe that the important distinction of powers is in the separation of power between executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government, and in the relationship of states rights to the powers of the federal government. These are important, and interesting things to consider. However, it’s more fundamental to grasp that the Lord Jesus has established 3 distinct governments in the world: the civil government, the church, and the family. Each has its own sphere of authority, and they must not encroach on one another’s authorities. So, for example, if someone commits a crime against a member of your family you must not take the law into your own hands; that is the job of the civil government. But the civil government has no right to impinge on the freedom of Christ’s church to worship him and proclaim his truth.

  8. We’re trained to think that the fundamental ideological division is between Left and Right. That way of construing things would have been baffling to most people in Christian history, and to most of the great political thinkers in Christian history. That way of construing things is French. So you can be confident that it’s wrong. It comes out of the Enlightenment, out of the French revolution. It’s essentially a way of saying, Are you a radical revolutionary who wants to see a lot of violence and bloodshed, or are you a more cautious revolutionary who only wants to see a little bit? The Left-Right political distinction deserves a decent Christian burial. For the Christian political tradition, from Augustine onwards, the fundamental division is between the City of God and the City of Man. Augustine taught that a society is united by common objects of love. The City of Man is united by love of self and love of power. The City of God is united by love of God and love of all things in God – the two great commandments that we say each week – love of God and love of neighbor. This means that the fundamental problems in a society come from selfishness, from loving ourselves, loving power. They come from wanting to build my own kingdom and establish my own rights rather than serving the loving kingdom of the Lord Jesus. So any political solution that doesn’t deal with this problem is part of the problem. We need a Ruler who can transform us from being people who are selfish into people who love others.

  9. We need to distinguish between the ideal and reality. We should love, and work, and pray for the ideal set out for us in Psalm 72. We shouldn’t give up on it. But we mustn’t be perfectionists. We do the best we can, given the current situation. So if you feel like when you’re pulling the lever you’ll be holding your nose because the ballot paper stinks, that’s ok. We do the best we can, given the options before us, because it’s God who has put this choice before us. He gave us these candidates in this election.

  10. Remember points 1 and 2. I love you, and I love this country.

  Categories: General | Matthew Mason | Political Theology

  3 Comments

• August 29, 2012 by Jason Hood

  Interviews on Politics and Theology

  Well, it’s the political season again, and I want to point out the interviews on politics and theology we did in late 2010. Each interview has a highlighted quote from the interview to give a window into the method or thought of the theologian in question. Here are links to the interviews, followed by a list of the questions (usually!) answered by each respondent:

  (1) Jim Skillen, co-founder and long-time director and president of the Center for Public Justice;

  (2) David Koyzis, professor of political science at Redeemer University College in Ontario, Canada;

  (3) Stanley Hauerwas, professor of theological ethics at Duke Divinity School (and also teaching for Duke University School of Law);

  (4) Richard Land, long-time leader in the Religious Right and president of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention;

  (5) Oliver O’Donovan, British political theologian.

  (6) Amy Sherman, noted author and expert on ministries of compassion.

  (7) Will Willimon, United Methodist bishop.

  (8) John Frame, professor of philosophy and systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary.

  (9) Carl Trueman, professor of Church history and historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary.

  (10) R. Scott Clark, professor of church history at Westminster Seminary California.

  (11) Peter Leithart, senior fellow at New St. Andrew’s College.

  (12) Arthur Simon, founder and now president emeritus of Bread for the World.

  1. For those who are not familiar with your work, can you describe your contribution to the question of how the individual Christian and the Church relates to the State?

  2.  Richard Mouw and Carl F. H. Henry have suggested that the Church’s role is not coterminous with the responsibility possessed by individual believers.  Do you agree or disagree?

  3.  Please identify for our readers two influential thinkers or political concepts to which you often respond (perhaps one positive, one negative)?

  4. How would you summarize the political responsibilities of the average American in the pew—that is, someone with voting rights, but little political capital, and little or no economic capital for political action?

  5.  How does Romans 13 help us understand the limits placed on the church and/or the individual believer in our engagement with political matters?

  6.  How do biblical books such as Deuteronomy and Proverbs help us to understand God’s perspective on politics?  Does the fact that they share political and ethical insights with other Ancient Near Eastern cultures (or that they offer critiques of those cultures and their political systems) influence your view of their relevance?

  7.  Some political theologians note that Daniel simultaneously models service, critique, and a message of divine judgment.  Are all three of these to be implemented by believers?  Are they postures we should always exhibit, or are they more appropriate at some times than others?

  8.  If a young church planter says to you, “In my social and cultural context, I need to avoid political topics.  This enables me to address the gospel without any baggage and has helped our church create a community of diverse perspectives centered on Christ and his work.  But am I doing the right thing?  Should I be bolder?”  How would you respond?  Which passages would you use as a resource for guiding his or her thinking?

  9.  What is the best article or essay a young pastor could read on politics, political interpretation of Scripture, or political theology?  The best book?

  Categories: General | Interviews on Politics and Theology | Jason Hood | Political Theology

  0 Comments

• October 20, 2011 by Jason Hood

  John Frame on the Political Mission of the Church

  There’s a great deal of debate over the degree to which the message of the NT was “counter-imperial.” There’s also an ongoing debate over the nature of the church’s mission.

  Here are thoughts from John Frame, whom we interviewed for our series on political theology last year: “ . . . in a well-planted church, people should eventually be taught what Scripture says about politics (above). The first church planters of the Book of Acts did not stress politics (except for the Kingdom of God, a very political concept). But eventually, as in Rom. 13, they dealt with the political implications of the Gospel.”

  Elsewhere Frame sums up the political implications of Jesus and his mission (paragraph breaks added for clarity):

  So historia salutis [salvation viewed from a historical rather than personal perspective] focuses on non-recurrent historical events of a corporate, public, and visible nature. As such, Scripture often describes it in political terms.

  The history of salvation is the coming of the Kingdom, to allude to Herman Ridderbos’s important volume by that title. God calls Israel to defeat by his power all the ungodly nations of Canaan. These are holy wars, and God promises Victory to Israel when she is faithful to him. John the Baptist, and later Jesus, preached “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

  The apostolic church preached “Jesus is Lord,” Kyrios Iesous, a phrase with a deeply political meaning. The Roman emperors proclaimed their own Lordship; the Christians proclaim the Lordship of Jesus. The Romans crucified Jesus, and later persecuted the church, because they thought Jesus presented himself as a rival Caesar. The Romans, of course, misunderstood Jesus’ claims in some ways; but in other ways they were deeply insightful.

  The mission of the church was nothing less than to establish a new world order.

  Frame’s comments on the Roman’s perspective square with the assessment, made by a number of NT scholars, holding a moderate position on the “Fresh Perspective,” or the degree to which the NT is counter-imperial.

  Categories: General | Jason Hood | John Frame | kingdom | Political Theology

  2 Comments

• September 11, 2011 by Jason Hood

  The Tabletalk Devotional for Sept 11, 2001

  This morning one local church included some footage of me reminiscing on 9/11. I was a schoolteacher in urban Memphis at the time, and it fell to me to break the news to my young teenage students and help them make sense of the senseless.

  I have to confess that our discussion helped me process as well, and having something to focus on (history, or fiction, or whatever we did that afternoon) was a helpful reminder that life was going on, and that life should go on.

  My wife was working for her parents, caring for her mother. That evening her father got out Tabletalk Magazine to read the daily devotional with them. They almost couldn’t believe what they saw.

  The daily reading was on Judges 9:42-49. It is the story of the over-the-top, groteseque, ruthless act of vengeance perpetrated by Abimelech against a city that first chose him to rule, then spawned rebels against his rule, a rebellion he squelched. Word comes to Abimelech that he is returning to normal; he decides that “he is not satisfied at having defeated the conspirators; he wants to punish all the Shechemites for their rebellion.”

  Verse 49 concludes the story, “They piled [branches] against the stronghold and set it on fire above the people inside. So all the people in the tower of Shechem, about a thousand men and women, also died.”

  The whole of chapter nine is a wild story, but in short the destruction wreaked by Abimelech fulfills the prophecy of fiery destruction that Jotham called down in earlier verses. Abimelech’s deed was wrong, yet (perhaps) somehow still served a purpose in bringing judgment on the Shechemites and their rebellion and wickedness. The concluding note in the Tabletalk entry was from Matthew Henry’s commentary: God uses the deeds of the wicked for his purposes, even though God intends “one thing and they another.” He cites Isaiah 10:5-7; one could add many other instances in the Bible, up to and including the death of Jesus (Acts 2:23).

  I believe this is a helpful word. Was 9/11 judgment on our nation? In the wake of over-the-top pronouncements from Pat Robertson on the right and Jeremiah Wright on the left, it’s common to say, “Absolutely not.” But I’m not so sure we can say that with confidence. God uses circumstances to humble individuals and nations and congregations rather than to enhance their sense of self-reliance and pride. I have to confess that I did not hear that approach taken by many American evangelical; our responses mirrored those of other Americans and tended toward hubris and militarism, rather than humility and repentance.

  However, we can affirm that even if 9/11 and the economic and military crises to which it led were an act of God’s judgment, the enemies of our country are not vindicated, for the intentions of Al-Qaeda are not the same as God’s intentions. God uses Babylon and Assyria to discipline and judge his people…then turns around and judges those empires and their leaders. Nota bene, Al Qaeda.

  Nota bene, USA.

  Categories: General | Jason Hood | Political Theology | sovereignty

  0 Comments

• March 2, 2011 by Jason Hood

  Militant Martyr Videos

  In the West we are very familiar with the martyrdom videos made by religious extremists as they prepare to kill themselves and others. There’s now such a video on Youtube of an entirely different sort.

  Shahbaz Batti was Pakistan’s Minister for Minority Affairs and what some would call a religious extremist. He was killed for opposing Pakistani anti-blasphemy laws. Batti was a Roman Catholic and the second prominent Pakistani leader to be killed for opposing such laws, even as other leaders shy away from opposing these laws. He was inundated with death threats and requested that in the event of his death, a video be posted on the internet, a final testimony of sorts. I strongly urge you to watch this video–it’s only 90 seconds.

  Then contrast the final testimony of suicide bombers. What Batti did was suicidal as well, but he died to sow peace and justice and to testify to the reign of the Risen Lord. Not to kill and maim and inflict fear, but to absorb such things.

  Categories: Cross | General | Jason Hood | Political Theology

  0 Comments

• December 24, 2010 by Jason Hood

  SAET Interviews in Politics and Theology #12: Arthur Simon

  “The best thing a pastor or church leader can do is to urge their members as citizens and because of Christ to (1) get serious about biblical love and justice (fairness) in public life; and (2) register their concerns to elected officials on specific issues. Discipleship does include these things, and the church can offer encouragement and guidance without becoming partisan, ideological or offensively “political.” Bread for the World is a vehicle for doing it that way with respect to hunger.”

  Our series is ending with this piece by Bread for the World founder Arthur Simon, perhaps a particularly fitting piece for Christmas Eve.

  But first a word about the makeup of our interviews in this series.  We expected a few more interviews to trickle in:  being unfashionable, we did not want the election to be a firm boundary as we would rather have the interaction late than not at all.  (Simon’s interview would have been a great pairing with two of the interviews that never matriculated.)  Additionally, we attempted to get more theological and ethnic diversity and to interview more women.  What has been included in our series is simply the result of who said “yes.”

  Simon was a Lutheran pastor who founded this major international organization which focuses chiefly on pubic policy initiatives.  He founded and led Bread for the World for many years and is now President Emeritus of this organization, which is dedicated to mobilizing citizens to lobby on behalf of the poor and hungry at home and abroad.  His brother Paul Simon was for many years U. S. Senator from the state of Illinois (D).  Simon’s comments have a more practical focus than some of the theological or philosophical concerns dominant in the responses of other interviewees, particularly as he addresses the role individual believers might play in the political arena.

  1. For those who are not familiar with your work, can you describe your contribution to the question of how the individual Christian and the Church relates to the State?

  I am a retired Lutheran (LCMS) pastor. In 1961 I began serving a parish on New York City’s Lower East Side, a densely populated and poverty-plagued area. My ministry there of nourishing people on the good news of Jesus Christ exposed our congregation to the struggles of many impoverished people. We responded with emergency assistance, but the limitations of such assistance soon became apparent. So we began wrestling with what, in addition, might be done to deal with some of the structural causes of hunger and poverty. Churches everywhere were engaged, directly or indirectly, in assistance; but almost nothing was being done to challenge Christians as citizens to urge the nation’s elected leaders to take action against hunger. So I gathered a group of seven Catholics and seven Protestants to see how we might mobilize a non-partisan, faith-based outcry of citizens against hunger.  The result was Bread for the World, launched nationally in May of 1974.

  Our idea was to enlist Christians across political and denominational lines to contact their U.S. representative and U.S. senators, in a timely fashion, on issues chosen because of the impact they could have on hungry people here and abroad.  The idea caught on quickly and each year since then, Bread for the World has been able to influence congressional action on such issues as U.S. food policy, tax reform, farm policy, foreign aid, and trade.  We are a “citizens lobby” or, more precisely, advocates for poor and hungry people.

  Bread for the World is independent, but church-related in the sense that we are an explicitly Christian group and have positive ties with most church denominations, including financial support from many denominational agencies. This relationship allows churches and church leaders to encourage their members to participate in an unusual ministry to hungry people through Bread for the World.  We have 70,000 members and supporters, plus several thousand churches that support Bread. In addition a much wider group of friends connect with Bread via the web. We are able to generate up to 200,000 letters to Congress on major campaigns, a lot of them through an “Offering of Letters” that many churches sponsor once a year.

  I have described our successes and setbacks in The Rising of Bread for the World: An Outcry of Citizens Against Hunger, Paulist Press, 2009.  On October 14 of this year, my successor at Bread, David Beckmann, was co-recipient of the World Food Prize, the Nobel Prize equivalent for food and agriculture. This award is, for the first time, going to CEOs of two private non-profit organizations in the U.S. (Jo Luck of Heifer Project is a co-recipient.) Beckmann was chosen in recognition of his exceptional leadership and the impact Bread for the World has as one of the organizations in “leading the charge to end hunger and poverty for millions of people around the world.”

  2. Richard Mouw and Carl F. H. Henry have suggested that the Church’s role is not coterminous with the responsibility possessed by individual believers.  Do you agree or disagree?

  I agree, with a qualification or two. I would not draw the line quite as tightly as they (or at least Carl Henry) might in restricting the church (as congregation or national body) from speaking out on public policies. But in the main I agree with them for three reasons. First, the church’s mission is to proclaim the gospel and make disciples. Public issues are related to discipleship, but great care must be taken in doing so. There’s a minefield out there. Good intentions are not enough.

  Second, the church is not primarily its officials or its organized leadership, but rather its members gathered around Word and Sacrament, and scattered in the world, acting as salt and light. There, in the daily responsibilities of life, is the arena for the church’s witness and service, and it is carried out overwhelmingly by lay Christians. Their ministry must be enhanced.

  Third, statements issued by church leaders usually don’t make much difference. Members of Congress are not sitting on the edge of their seats waiting to hear what a pastor or a national church body says about an issue. Before Bread for the World’s birth, economist Barbara Ward, fresh from a meeting of a pontifical commission on peace and justice, told Senator Walter Mondale that the churches in the United States were about to build broad public support for development in poor countries. Mondale replied, “I’ll call you when I get the first letter.” Later he commented, “I haven’t had to make that call yet.”

  Members of Congress may ignore church commissions, but they will pay attention to what voters in their own district or state care about. The best thing a pastor or church leader can do is to urge their members as citizens and because of Christ to (1) get serious about biblical love and justice (fairness) in public life; and (2) register their concerns to elected officials on specific issues. Discipleship does include these things, and the church can offer encouragement and guidance without becoming partisan, ideological or offensively “political.” Bread for the World is a vehicle for doing it that way with respect to hunger.

  Sometimes public pronouncements are justified and necessary. Slavery and the civil rights movement begged for courageous, compassionate church leadership, and eventually enough of it emerged to make a huge difference. But that required swimming against the stream, which often meant costly discipleship. Today hunger is such an issue, though the problem is not that Christians are in favor of hunger, but that, even if most of us contribute time or money to alleviate it, very few of us have discovered how crucial a role we can play as citizens in helping to bring this scourge to an end. Our silence is locking people into hunger.

  3.  Please identify for our readers two influential thinkers or political concepts to which you often respond (perhaps one positive, one negative)?

  Love and justice are the key biblical terms that shape my political thinking—God’s love and justice toward us, and ours toward others. Love, the foremost of the two, also includes justice, because justice is the form love takes in the matter of governance. They are, therefore, one not two virtues, yet distinguishable. Justice is love that tries to reflect, however dimly, the “do unto others” dictum on a broad scale. If my neighbor is hungry, love may prompt me to bring some groceries. If a million or a hundred million are hungry, love should prompt not merely a material gift, but efforts to arouse more effective public justice.

  The ethic of the Kingdom is the standard by which all efforts are judged, which is to admit that in our fallen world attempts to move toward it are often frustrated and always flawed. Still, we have received the love and justice of God, who calls us to show love and justice toward others. So we do not lose heart. Besides, during my own lifetime the world has seen a remarkable exodus from hunger for most of its people. That is a work of God, and I believe God wants us to help complete that exodus.

  On the negative side, the most formidable obstacle we face in gathering advocates from the churches is the reluctance of Christians to touch anything “political.” No doubt much of this reluctance stems from old-fashioned complacency, some from complexity, and a lot because of a feeling that “what I do won’t make any difference.” But it also reflects a privatized faith. Believers tend to confuse the separation of church and state with the separation of faith from life, and fence off huge areas of life having to do with politics and economics. But if Christ is Lord, then he is Lord of our entire life, not just segmented parts, so we dare not think aspects of life that deeply affect the well-being of others are off limits to faith. Bread for the World’s challenge is to persuade Christians that advocacy for justice is an important way of expressing our faith in love, and showing them—documenting—what a difference such advocacy has made, and how it has had a remarkable leveraging affect in helping hungry people. A dollar’s worth of advocacy goes a long, long way.

  4. How would you summarize the political responsibilities of the average American in the pew—that is, someone with voting rights, but little political capital, and little or no economic capital for political action?

  That would seem to describe most of us—with one outstanding exception: Each of us has a lot more political capital than we think. It is true that in politics money talks, and talks too much. But money isn’t the only thing or even the main thing that talks. Elected officials listen to the voters. Bread for the World finds, year after year, that letters to members of Congress have real impact. Sometimes they stave off proposals that would do great harm to poor and hungry people, and often they bring big, even dramatic improvements to them. But that happens when advocates work together. Lone rangers do not usually have much influence. That’s where Bread for the World comes in. We enlist members and keep them informed, so they can act in concert. They (1) know the issues being targeted; (2) and they can send a clear message to their members of Congress at the right time.

  For example, during the last ten years poverty-focused humanitarian and development aid in the U.S. foreign aid program has tripled, from roughly $7 billion a year to about $21 billion (this number could go up in the lame-duck session of Congress), and has included reforms that, among other things, enable small-scale farmers abroad to produce more food, millions more children to attend school, and small businesses to start or expand. In addition the current administration has gotten the main donor countries to greatly expand efforts to improve agriculture and food production in some of the poorest countries. These changes came about in part because of the dogged advocacy of Bread for the World members and our coalition partners in the churches and in other faith and secular groups. These citizen advocates are making a huge difference for millions of hungry people.

  5.  How does Romans 13 help us understand the limits placed on the church and/or the individual believer in our engagement with political matters?

  Paul used his Roman citizenship to obtain justice—or at least the nearest semblance of it that he could—for himself and his own ministry. But Paul was acutely aware of its limits, because imperial justice had crucified his Lord; and eventually it was to execute him as well. The governmental authority he knew would not have tolerated an advocacy group such as Bread for the World. Obviously the circumstances differ sharply for U.S. citizens. With democracy goes both a greatly enlarged responsibility and a greatly enlarged opportunity to seek justice and influence the practice of it.

  Romans 13 nevertheless gives us some underlying principles that still hold. (1) We are to be subject to governing authorities. (2) Those in authority are God’s servants for good (that’s God’s intent and their obligation). (3) They have been given power to enforce law and order. (4) We are duty-bound to do what is right and to pay taxes—not just to avoid punishment, but because it is the right thing to do. (5) We are to give those in authority respect and honor. The clear biblical exception to the first of these five principles is that “we must obey God rather than man.”  And the second principle implies an ethical dilemma: at what point do governing authorities so flagrantly violate the good—the public justice—for which God instituted them that disobedience is permissible or even an obligation?  Think of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Or the plight of North Koreans today.  What is right?  What is possible?

  What intrigues me about Romans 13 is Paul’s admonition to pay taxes, also for the sake of conscience, and (by inference) for the public good. Occasionally I hear someone argue that taxing citizens to support programs that assist poor people is morally objectionable, because it is coercing us to do what people should be doing voluntarily as private charity.  I do not get the impression that those who make this argument are lavish charitable givers, though, of course, I could be wrong.  In any case, Paul has already answered them.  That’s one point of interest.

  The other point is that we are part of a government of, by, and for the people.  We have a voice in deciding tax policy. The question then is, what is driving our response? Is it our pocket book? Personal bias? Careful analysis? Or principles guided by the profound biblical concern of justice for the poor? A combination of the last two would seem most consistent with Christian faith.

  6.  How do biblical books such as Deuteronomy and Proverbs help us to understand God’s perspective on politics?  Does the fact that they share political and ethical insights with other Ancient Near Eastern cultures (or that they offer critiques of those cultures and their political systems) influence your view of their relevance?

  Besides Deuteronomy and Proverbs, I would include especially the prophets and their critique of the governing elite and society as a whole, especially people of wealth and privilege. People whose hearts were set on their own prosperity and pleasure were crushing the poor, and so religious rituals were often an abomination to God. Think of the prophet Nathan, who confronted King David for abusing his power by having Uriah the Hittite killed and taking his wife, Bathsheba. Nathan told him about a rich man who stole his poor neighbor’s only lamb. “That man deserves to die!” said David angrily. “You are the man,” replied Nathan.

  The Bible is saturated with reminders of God’s determination to show mercy and bring justice to the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the immigrant. God’s desire was and is that “there will be no poor among you”(Deut.15:4). Deuteronomy is repeatedly insistent that God’s people are to desire the same, because when they were foreigners in the land of Egypt, God delivered them from slavery. This redemptive mercy of God was to be the source of their own mercy. Laws referring to property rights, gleaning, debt forgiveness, and treatment of others were intended to help people avoid poverty, but the underlying appeal is for love and justice: “[God] executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt”(Deut. 10:18).

  Political and ethical insights that Israel shared with gentile cultures (like parallels to the Sermon on the Mount in other cultures) pose no problem. God works in many ways to give us understanding. In the end, it is not political uniqueness or superior ethical principles that lie at the heart of our faith, but God’s redemptive love for us in Christ. That is the saving, empowering hope that prompts us to love others and seek justice for them.

  7.  Some political theologians note that Daniel simultaneously models service, critique, and a message of divine judgment.  Are all three of these to be implemented by believers?  Are they postures we should always exhibit, or are they more appropriate at some times than others?

  The story of Daniel gives an example of service that anytime, anywhere, addresses all believers, though with special poignancy to those in public office. But it should remind all of us of our responsibility to work faithfully and courageously for the common good. “To whom much has been given of him will much be required,” and we have been given a lot.

  As to critique, we should give thanks for the truly great blessings of our nation and democracy, while at the same time honestly face its faults and seek to eliminate injustices. True patriotism does both. Whining and griping don’t help, but neither does blind praise. Both are destructive.

  Divine judgment is, by definition, out of our territory. We should be aware that all of our efforts, personally and as a nation, stand under the judgment of God.  For that reason, we have ample reason to live by repentance—but that is much easier to do individually than as a nation.  Self-righteousness comes instinctively, and we easily imagine ourselves to be more innocent than we are—yet another reason for both personal and corporate humility.

  8.  If a young church planter says to you, “In my social and cultural context, I need to avoid political topics.  This enables me to address the gospel without any baggage and has helped our church create a community of diverse perspectives centered on Christ and his work.  But am I doing the right thing?  Should I be bolder?”  How would you respond?  Which passages would you use as a resource for guiding his or her thinking?

  Yes, you are doing the right thing in uniting a diverse community around the person and work of Christ. Your assignment is not to be a political guide, but one who invites people to Christ and trains them in discipleship.  But should you be bolder?  Yes again, for the simple reason that whole-life discipleship includes addressing issues that deeply affect the well-being of others.  If you are a pastor, you need not and should not go at this in a politically partisan fashion (usually ill-disguised).  But you should help your people understand that, as Christians, they need to care about such issues out of love for Christ and others, and to approach the issues with a Christ-like desire for compassionate justice.

  The pulpit is one place to do this, if done with great care.  An adult Bible class or forum, or other church group meetings, provide a way to engage people in thoughtful discussion, and that is often a better path.

  Guiding biblical texts?  That depends on the issue.  On hunger and justice for the poor there is an abundance of possibilities.  The Gospel of Luke alone is loaded with truly powerful texts.  But do our people get it?

  9.  What is the best article or essay a young pastor could read on politics, political interpretation of Scripture, or politicaltheology?  The best book?

  My reading is limited and eclectic and, off the top of my head, doesn’t point to any one best article or book.  Much of my initial formation came by way of a variety of Lutheran theologians and discussions with my brother Paul, whose career in public service began early and eventually took him to the U.S. Senate.  Along the way books and articles by, among others, John Bennett, Martin Marty, John Courtney Murray, S.J., Chad Myers, Richard Neuhaus, Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr, James Skillen [editor's note: see our interview with Skillen], and Jim Wallis have been instructive.  The Center for Public Justice (founded by Skillen) is an impressive source of biblically serious and carefully balanced thinking in this area.  In 1987 I wrote a small paperback, Christian Faith and Public Policy: No Grounds for Divorce (Eerdmans) that covered some of the above topics in more detail.

  Categories: General | Interviews on Politics and Theology | Jason Hood | Political Theology

  0 Comments

• December 13, 2010 by Matthew Mason

  Things to Read

  Further to our series of interviews on politics and theology, Stanley Hauerwas’s review of Peter Leithart, Defending Constantine is now freely available online.

  And if you’re interested in contemporary Catholic theology, philosophy, and cultural studies, the always interesting New Blackfriars is offering 30 days of free access to all 91 volumes (1920-2010).

  Categories: General | Political Theology | Theology

  2 Comments

• December 10, 2010 by Jason Hood

  Reflections on a Citizenship Ceremony: Allegiance, Ideology, Fidelity

  This week I had the privilege of watching a former student of mine and his mother become naturalized United States citizens.  They came to our country from Sudan via Kenya nine years ago.  Our country is immeasurably richer because they are here, and I’m grateful they have found refuge and opportunity in the United States.

  The ceremony included a Lee Greenwood video (the officiant sang along, stood up at “I’ll gladly stand up, next to you and defend her…” and urged all of us to do the same), a message from the President, the Pledge, and a long introductory speech that was part comedy, part inspiration.  The only thing missing was a Yakov Smirnoff video.  (“I love this country!”)

  The event had some oddities, however.  President Obama told us that we are not united by race or ideology, but by belief in the principles found in our founding documents.  It’s unclear to me how the Constitution escapes the category “ideology”, unless we live in some naïve world where my beliefs, laws, or governing concepts constitute unvarnished truth, and everyone else’s laws and governing concepts are mere ideology.

  A few moments earlier the officiant told us that “what unites us is not bloodline but a belief in freedom and democracy.”  But biblically speaking, a common bloodline does unite us (Acts 17), and what will further unite believers for eternity is belief in the King and our royal citizenship sharing in his global monarchical reign.

  While I am grateful to share the gift of American citizenship with my African friends, I also struggle with the degree of allegiance claimed by the oath in question.  I hope my friends–and all American believers–remember the One to whom we truly owe “true faith and allegiance” and for whom we relinquish “all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty”.

  Categories: Jason Hood | Political Theology

  1 Comment

• November 10, 2010 by Jason Hood

  SAET Interviews in Politics and Theology #10: R. Scott Clark

  With regard to political action:  American Christians (particularly evangelicals) must get over the microwave mentality. We need to think more in terms of camp fires and cook outs. It takes a long time to make a decent meal outdoors and it might all go wrong . . . . If we substituted the camp fire for the microwave we might also be useful by becoming more critical of reigning cultural paradigms. For example, many American Christians are suburbanites. They make take the existence of suburbs for granted but should we? . . . . Christianity is not middle-class American suburbia nor is it neo-Romanticism about “the city.”  Where is the evangelical, missional passion for rural America?

  R. Scott Clark is Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California and Associate Pastor at Oceanside United Reformed Church (URCNA).  He studied at Westminster Seminary California and earned a doctorate in church history from Oxford, focusing on the covenant theology of Caspar Olevian.  Clark blogs at the Heidelblog.

  1. For those who are not familiar with your work, can you describe your contribution to the question of how the individual Christian and the Church relates to the State?

  RSC: I doubt that I’ve made any contribution to this question. My interest is partly historical, partly biblical-exegetical, theological, and pastoral. I have an academic interest in the history of Reformed theology and ethics and particularly in the way the classical Reformed theologians (and confessional churches) understood creation, natural law, and the intersection between those categories and Reformed soteriology and understanding of redemptive history. As a pastor I have seen the damage done to the visible church by confusing the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world.

  2.  Richard Mouw and Carl F. H. Henry have suggested that the Church’s role is not coterminous with the responsibility possessed by individual believers.  Do you agree or disagree?

  RSC: If I understand the question correctly, yes, I agree. What Christ has commissioned the visible church, as an institution, to do is one thing; and what he has commissioned the Christian to do is rather broader. This distinction goes back at least to the early Reformation’s doctrines of vocation and its distinction between the two kingdoms. It also has roots in St Augustine’s distinction between the two cities. Christians have a dual citizenship. St Paul says that we have a heavenly citizenship (Phil 3:20) but we also have an earthly citizenship (Rom 13:1-7). If we understand that the Israelite theocracy was fulfilled by Christ then we also understand that God has made no special covenant with any nation. The visible church is the Israel of God (Gal 6:16). The responsibility of the visible church is to be the principle representative of the kingdom of God (the heavenly kingdom) on the earth (Matt 16; Matt 18). Historically considered, the church as an institution has had very difficult time fulfilling the responsibilities given to her by our Lord: administration of Word, sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline (Belgic Confession article 29).

  Christians, however, as members of the common kingdom, under God’s sovereign rule, have civil responsibilities. They may form private associations (outside the visible church) to address social issues which are common to believers and non-believers. They may and should speak, as Christians, to social questions. Because we confess that, as Creator and Redeemer, Christ is Lord of all and because we seek to live out our faith daily in God’s good creation and active providence in the world, we cannot withdraw from it. The great error of “world flight” is that it denies the essential goodness of creation. The essential error of the theology of glory is that confuses heaven with earth. Confessional Protestants have a doctrine of vocation that calls the Christian to engage the God’s world to the benefit of his neighbor and the glory of God while always distinguishing this world from the world to come.

  3.  Please identify for our readers two influential thinkers or political concepts tHi o which you often respond (perhaps one positive, one negative)?

  RSC: My politics have evolved considerably during my lifetime. I was raised a liberal (Humphrey) Democrat. I was catechized on the Sunday paper and local politics. When other children we in Sunday School I was putting up yard signs. In university I read political philosophy and the combination of Plato, Augustine, Calvin, and Hobbes led me to a sort of democratic socialism.  Herbert Schlossberg’s Idols for Destruction was helpful in alerting me to the theological errors (and cardinal sins) inherent in socialism. Plato (or neo-Platonism) is wrong. The Spirit-matter dualism is an error. It is not Paul’s (Holy) Spirit-flesh (sin) dualism. Jesus is true God and true man. It was Calvin’s doctrine of creation and natural law and the epistemological (common sense) realism of the Reformed orthodox that began to push me and my Augustinian view of sin in a more libertarian direction. Along the way I have been influenced, in different ways, by the early fathers (e.g., Ad Diognetum), Augustine,  Eric Voeglin, Hannah Arrendt, C. S. Lewis, W. F. Buckley, and Dorothy Sayers among others. From Reformed orthodoxy I learned the distinction between the covenants of works and grace. In theological terms, civil life, whether in local communities or in international relations,  is a covenant of works (“do this and live”) and not a covenant of grace. The administration of the covenant of grace (“for God so loved the world”) belongs to the visible church not to the magistrate.

  4. How would you summarize the political responsibilities of the average American in the pew—that is, someone with voting rights, but little political capital, and little or no economic capital for political action?

  RSC: In this world one either spends time or money (and sometimes both). Even when the latter is lacking there is a great deal that might be done on the local level and Christians are willing to get involved and spend the time. Political capital, like economic capital is accumulated over time. Local politics is about involvement and taking risks. American Christians (particularly evangelicals) must get over the microwave mentality. We need to think more in terms of camp fires and cook outs. It takes a long time to make a decent meal outdoors and it might all go wrong. It might not taste good but it’s necessary. If Christians involve themselves in the local school board or local council races or even on advisory committees these are inexpensive ways to become involved in local civil life.

  If we substituted the camp fire for the microwave we might also be useful by becoming more critical of reigning cultural paradigms. For example, many American Christians are suburbanites. They make take the existence of suburbs for granted but should we? We are all creatures of a given time and place but being Christians gives us the opportunity to step outside our own time and place a bit and to see it more objectively, more critically. Christianity is not middle-class American suburbia nor is it neo-Romanticism about “the city.” God may be glorified in both places but he may also be glorified in rural settings. Where is the evangelical, missional passion for rural America? Re-engaging rural America will not happen quickly. It might take decades but there are opportunities all through the American Heartland for those who want to engage civil life on a micro-level with limited resources.

  5.  How does Romans 13 help us understand the limits placed on the church and/or the individual believer in our engagement with political matters?

  RSC: When I was in seminary I recall a fellow-student with theonomic inclinations dismissing Romans 13 as if it were insignificant. It seems to me that if one finds Romans 13 insufficient or insignificant for ones understanding of the Christian’s role in civil life then one is likely asking the wrong questions or beginning with the wrong assumptions. One should ask, “why do I find Romans 13 unsatisfactory?” Could it be that one is seeking outcomes or working with expectations that St Paul did not? Americans have invoked and abused Jesus’ teaching about   a “city shining on a hill” (Matt 5:14). The American colonies were not that city. Jesus is the light of the world and his Christians are the “light of the world” (Matt 5:14) by virtue of their union with him. It’s important to note, however, how Paul called us to be light in the world principally by living a “peaceful and quiet life” (1 Tim 2:2). That American Christians bristle at God’s calling Romans 13,  for submission to established authorities, says a great deal about the continuing influence of the revolutionary spirit. Paul clearly teaches at all authorities, even Nero, are instituted by God. This is why Calvin was so careful to stipulate that popular revolution is immoral, that it is the vocation of the “lesser magistrates” to hold civil rulers in check. Paul understood what he was saying. Christians suffered under Nero and they would suffer more grievously in centuries to come. I think the treatise Ad Diognetum (c. 155 AD possibly by Polycarp) is most a instructive application of Romans 13. His argument was that the Christians were false accused of being seditious. He responded (5:.1-11):

  For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of humanity by country, language, or custom. For nowhere do they live in cities of their own, nor do they speak some unusual dialect, nor do they practice an eccentric way of life…For while they live in both Greek and barbarian cities, as each one’s lot was cast, and follow the local customs in dress and food and other aspects of life, at the same time they demonstrate the remarkable and admittedly unusual character of their own citizenship. The live in their own countries but only as nonresidents, they participate in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign country is their fatherland, and every fatherland is foreign. They marry like everyone else, and have children, but they do not expose their offspring. They share their food but not their wives. They are in the flesh, but they do not live according to the flesh. They live on earth but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws; indeed in their private lives they transcend the laws. They love everyone, and by everyone they are persecuted.

  Would that the same could be said of us today.

  6.  How do biblical books such as Deuteronomy and Proverbs help us to understand God’s perspective on politics?  Does the fact that they share political and ethical insights with other Ancient Near Eastern cultures (or that they offer critiques of those cultures and their political systems) influence your view of their relevance?

  RSC: I think these are two distinct, if related, questions. The Westminster Divines (chapter 19) answered the first (regarding the contemporary application of Deuteronomy) by reminding us that there are three aspects to the Mosaic law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. The Decalogue (Deut 5) is a typological, Israelite, summary of the moral, creational law. It is permanent and it like the other two aspects of the Mosaic law (613 Mitzvoth) have been fulfilled by Christ. The divines, however, were at pains to point out that the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law have been fulfilled. What remains is the moral law, given in creation, that binds all people in all times. The “general equity” of the Mosaic civil law continues to be of use to us but we should understand, as your question suggests, that the Israelite civil law was not absolutely unique and thus though there are general principles to be discerned it is because those principles are grounded in creational (natural) justice which existed prior to Israel and which continue to bind civil magistrates two millennia after Christ fulfilled them. The principal function of the Pentateuch (Torah) generally is to point us to Christ. Only secondarily and indirectly does it provide guidance to contemporary civil life and even then only in general terms.

  Proverbs is important for the civil life of the Christian because it was intended to serve as an introduction to wisdom, as a collection of maxims that, properly understood and skillfully applied, will result in benefit to the one who obeys them. Ultimately, of course, wisdom points to Christ, the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:18). Proximately, however, Christians as much as anyone need practical wisdom to live life “under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:3). Inasmuch as evangelical political engagement has lacked a lot of wisdom for the last several decades one might say that we are much more in need of Proverbs (and perhaps Ecclesiastes and Job!) than we are Deuteronomy.

  7.  Some political theologians note that Daniel simultaneously models service, critique, and a message of divine judgment.  Are all three of these to be implemented by believers?  Are they postures we should always exhibit, or are they more appropriate at some times than others?

  RSC: Darryl Hart and David VanDrunen have both properly pointed us to Daniel as a good model for Christian social and political engagement. We are not in Canaan. We are in exile. Daniel did not seek to overturn the established social or civil order. He served God faithfully within it, within the limits established by God’s Word. This is how it has always been. When the magistrate called Daniel to transgress God’s law, Daniel refused and accepted the consequences. The paradox of Christian political influence is that it will most likely come not through the acquisition of power but by the quiet (and perhaps therefore conspicuous) adherence to God’s Word that transcends all political and civil authority.

  8.  If a young church planter says to you, “In my social and cultural context, I need to avoid political topics.  This enables me to address the gospel without any baggage and has helped our church create a community of diverse perspectives centered on Christ and his work.  But am I doing the right thing?  Should I be bolder?”  How would you respond?  Which passages would you use as a resource for guiding his or her thinking?

  RSC: Of course a church planter must be wise. He must know his setting, his limitations, but he  must also know and be faithful to the whole counsel of God. I doubt that any pastor is called to preach on “political” topics, depending upon how one defines political. Preaching Romans 13 or 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Peter 2:13-17 is not “political.” If it is true, as the Reformed have thought, that we live in two kingdoms simultaneously, then the preacher is called to proclaim the advent of God’s Kingdom in Christ (Mark 1:15), to call everyone everywhere to repentance and faith but he is also called to preach and teach God’s Word as it applies to our life as citizens of the creational kingdom, which we share with those who do not confess Christ. Christians want to know how they should conduct themselves at work, with the non-Christian co-workers, neighbors, and family and God’s Word speaks to those things. If the word “politics” refers to partisan politics, to calls to elect this candidate or to vote this way or that, then no preacher, let alone a church planter, should be speaking to those things that way from the pulpit. A minister is not called to be an emissary from the civil kingdom. There are plenty of those. He is called to serve as an ambassador from the Kingdom of God to this world and he is to announce the in-breaking of that kingdom, in Christ, in Word and sacrament, into this world.

  9.  What is the best article or essay a young pastor could read on politics, political interpretation of Scripture, or political theology?  The best book?

  RSC: Darryl Hart’s A Secular Faith and David VanDrunen’s Living in God’s Two Kingdoms are two excellent places to begin to think through these issues. Ken Myers’ Mars Hill Audio is indispensable for continuing to grow in this area.

  Categories: Interviews on Politics and Theology | Jason Hood | Political Theology

  7 Comments