In the wake of the U.S. election, Crawford Paul muses on the role of the church in a democracy. Here’s his setup:
“The
dilemma comes when the church, which is NOT a democracy, exists in a nation
that IS a democracy. How does the church uphold a democracy that would
ensure their right to follow the teachings of the Bible while at the same time
grant rights to those who contradict the Scriptures?”
Hmm. I agree with much of what
Crawford says in his piece, but I have a very different take on a few of his assumptions.
Upholding Democracy
First, the
church does not “uphold a democracy”. I cannot think of a single corporate obligation toward government
of any kind that is found in the New Testament. Christians have an individual obligation to obey the existing government to the greatest extent possible without compromising our obligations to God. This
is true whether our government is a monarchy, a democracy or even some form of
communism. Christians are each to “pay to all what is owed”. But obedience and respect are the limits of that obligation. As for the church corporately,
other than in the spiritual realm, the Body of Christ does not “uphold”
anything.
That may seem like a nitpicky distinction,
but it becomes relevant the moment we start to discuss things like “the church’s
position with respect to Issue X”. Since, from the Lord’s perspective, the
church is made up of only those who know him personally, it should be clear
almost immediately that there is no meaningful way to (i) identify the
true church within Christendom; (ii) bring the true church to agreement
about any particular issue; or (iii) mobilize the true church in pursuit
of any goal, democratic or otherwise.
Sure, attempts at such things have been made
by denominational leaders, ad hoc coalitions and entities like the Moral
Majority, but these can no more be asserted to represent the will of God for a nation than the
preferences of any cross-section of religious humanity.
The true church can certainly be
spiritually mobilized through prayer, but I cannot envision how it might be biblically
mobilized in any public, formal, identifiable political way.
Ensuring Our Rights
Second, while it is a welcome bonus when governments grant us the legal “right to follow the teachings of the
Bible”, in the far more important moral realm, we have had that right from Day One. That right is God-given, not a gift from our elected representatives to be rescinded at their whim. In fact, it is less a “right” than our privilege and solemn obligation. “We must obey God rather than men” does not sound optional to me.
What we do not have is a guarantee that
following the teachings of the Bible will always come without cost. The Lord
has never promised us that.
Granting Rights to Others
A democracy grants certain rights to its citizens,
usually the rights insisted upon by those who make the most noise and carry the
most cash. And as I will shortly illustrate, the granting of almost any right carries with it intrinsically the
denial of rights to other individuals and groups.
Our (limited) duty of obedience in a
democratic environment is not to democracy conceptually
or even to our fellow citizens as a group, but only to the current elected government, whether we
happen to like it and have voted for it or not.
Thus there is no tension between, on the
one hand, the Christian’s obligation to be salt and light in the world and, on
the other, his choosing to cast his vote for the candidate who may oppose
abortion or mass immigration, or may support a particular economic policy, even
though many of his fellow citizens might heartily object to his choices and feel that THEIR rights are being violated. Having
cast his vote (and perhaps said his piece in the process), he can now quietly
go about the business of obeying the government for the next four years
or so — at least insofar as the laws of the land do not make compliance an act of rebellion against God.
Two Untenable Assumptions
Further, Crawford believes the following is
the only option for the church:
“Recognize the rights that a democracy brings to all people, including those who oppose the Bible, and live out Christ as He would live, demonstrating not the judgment of God, but the salvation he offers.”
Now, I thoroughly agree with Crawford’s
aspiration here, at least insofar as making the gospel the Christian’s priority
in the world, rather than engaging in loud, prolonged and ultimately futile
efforts to reform society. Communicating truth that leads men and women to
salvation is the goal here.
But there are two problems with this option:
1. Recognizing Rights
As I mentioned previously, as we have increasingly
allowed the concept of “rights” rather than responsibilities to frame the
public discourse, those of us paying attention have noticed that all these various,
mostly arbitrary “rights” we speak of actually exist in tension with one
another. In fact, nearly every new “right” granted by government ends up
violating the established rights of someone else. The granting of new “rights” often causes more social damage than it repairs and creates more problems than it solves.
Most modern rights legislation simply moves an existing problem into someone else’s backyard. For instance:
- The putative “rights” of a woman to sovereignty over her own body frequently violate the actual rights of the unborn.
- In Europe, the putative “right” of unlimited immigration is now violating the actual right to safety and security of the citizens which comprise the EU’s tax base, a self-defeating proposition if there ever was one.
- The putative “right” of a microscopic minority of transgender persons to use whichever public restroom they please must invariably clash with the rights of parents to ensure safety for their children. If we’re going to invent previously unheard-of rights out of whole cloth, how about the right of children not to be inadvertently sexualized when their parents drag them along to Target?
- The putative “right” not to be offended (as the law currently attempts to define it) egregiously violates the long-standing and increasingly necessary right to freedom of speech.
- The putative “right” to freedom of religion cannot sanely be extended to religions that historically have used their muscle in the political arena to create religious monopolies.
Thus to recognize “the rights that
democracy brings to all people” is actually to recognize only the particular subset of those rights that is currently in vogue.
It is hard to see how a bunch of Christians accepting society’s incoherent and
constantly-changing framing of the issues benefits the spread of the gospel or
accomplishes the will of God.
2. The Judgment/Salvation Tension
Crawford exhorts believers to “live out
Christ as He would live, demonstrating not the judgment of God, but the salvation
he offers.” In doing so, I think he is (maybe inadvertently) setting up an
unbiblical tension between judgment and salvation.
It is frankly impossible to preach
salvation biblically without preaching judgment, especially in a society that embraces
every possible “right”, including rights to participate in things no human
being was ever designed for; activities that destroy mind, body and soul. The Lord
didn’t separate out these two subjects and neither did his apostles.
For instance, at Pentecost, Peter says, “Everyone
who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”, but not without first
answering the perfectly legitimate question “Saved from what?” Here’s what:
“And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.”
In fact, I would argue the salvation God offers
must inevitably appear superfluous in a world without a very clear picture of coming judgment
in view.
Now of course in a day like ours such a
message may not always be appreciated, but that’s a different problem.
No comments :
Post a Comment