Like many countries, [Boston University sociologist Peter] Berger argues, the United States is, metaphorically speaking, a nation of “Indians” ruled by “Swedes.” “If you look at the data, India is one of the most religious nations in the world,” he explains. “If you take three steps in India, you fall across four gods. Sweden, on the other hand, is one of the most secular nations in the world. In America, the cultural elite is largely ‘Swedish,’ and the people are, metaphorically, ‘Indians.’ Many socio-political conflicts over the last four decades have had a lot to do with the ‘Indians’ resenting the ‘Swedes.’”

Sam Hughes, “Sages and the Spirit”:

Trust (Pew Charitable Trust), Winter 2004

Dear Saints,

A Sunday bulletin announcement in early May prompted a couple of you to speak and write to me, objecting to the use of a church bulletin to promote a political event; and it has elicited Jim Kitler’s thoughtful article on page 11 of this month’s Words. The “first annual” MDI Peace and Justice Conference was being held on a Sunday afternoon at Reel Pizza in Bar Harbor. While I included the announcement in hopes that interested Christians would take the opportunity to be “players” in local efforts to secure peace and justice, I have to admit it was obvious from the information provided about the afternoon’s program that the organizers did not intend to set the stage for an evenhanded treatment of the issues.

My reading of the Bible leads me to the conclusion that withdrawing from the country’s political and cultural life are not options for the Christian. We are to do our duty as citizens, except where doing so would dishonor the Lord Jesus. St. Paul told Christians to “obey the governing authorities” and think of them as God’s agents, with the presumption that in most cases civil law will be in accord with God’s moral law (Romans 13:1-7); and when Paul urged Christians to make “petitions, intercessions, and thanksgivings… for kings and others in authority” (1 Timothy 2:2), he was including the Emperor Nero, a monster who called himself a god, persecuted Christians, and eventually had Paul executed. How much more, then, in a political system where (in principle) “we the people” are the government, are we obliged to play a part in the political affairs of our communities and country?

I agree in principle with the idea that the Church should not normally be endorsing specific partisan platforms or candidates. I was grieved, though, to learn that one parishioner has a policy of never talking politics with friends, for the sake of staying friends. Assuming that the country’s political future, and its influence in the world, is of concern to us, we lie to God and to our Christian friends if we try to segregate our political selves from our faith; and if we don’t raise our political lives up in prayer when we gather.

Also, I believe it is the Church’s job to teach its members to think “Christianly” about the issues. Sometimes the outcome of this discernment process will seem to favor a particular party’s side in a political controversy. But it is in that spirit that I offer the following comments.

Two factors complicate our participation as Christians in political life: secularism and pluralism. Secularism is distinct from secularization. Secularization is the process by which, mainly in the last three centuries, functions once considered the domain of the Church, such as education, medicine, and taking care of the poor, have been turned over to the state. This is neither a good nor a bad thing, by itself. It has happened, mostly, with the consent of the governed. In many cases, it was initiated by Christians, motivated by a biblical understanding that the state, as an extension of ourselves and values, should look after the widows, orphans, and aliens in our midst; and by a pragmatic hope that the state, with its power to tax, was in a position to do more good for more people than a church which depends on voluntary gifts.

Secularism, on the other hand, is an ideology that seeks to remove all traces of religion from our public life. Stephen Carter, a Yale law professor, Episcopalian, and self-described evangelical Christian, wrote about this in his 1993 book, The Culture of Disbelief. (A copy is in the parish library.) This is where Professor Berger’s “Indian” populace, who bring religiously informed values to their civic life, get up in arms with the secularist “Swedes” who control the media, universities, and other institutions.

As to pluralism, the Oxford theologian, Alister McGrath, distinguishes between two kinds: “Descriptive” pluralism acknowledges the fact that in our society, all sorts of religions exist side by side; that each is obliged to respect the others’ right to a place in our society; and that the state is obliged not to favor one religious belief or practice over others, or interfere with any of them. “Prescriptive” pluralism is an ideology that says, in a society where all these religions exist side by side, religious “truth” is personal, private, and subjective; the truth claims of any religion are not to be argued, or compared with other religions, on the merits of their case, but all are to be valued as different ways of expressing the same reality; and (according to “prescriptive” pluralism) the dangerous and divisive person is the one who claims to hold beliefs that are objectively true for everyone, whether anyone believes them or not.

If it weren’t for people who behaved “badly” (by the standards of prescriptive pluralism), I doubt any of us would be Christians today, or that Christianity would have ever spread outside of 1^st century Jerusalem.

I bring up the issues of secularism and prescriptive pluralism to illustrate the social pressures we might encounter, to leave our Christian convictions at the door when we participate in political life.

C.S. Lewis warned marginalized Christians against supposing there could be a “Christian” political party. If it were truly Christian, it would lack the “market appeal” needed to accomplish its agenda. And since Christians differ among themselves in their approaches to the issues, some would have to be expelled to resolve the deadlock.

The new party - being probably a minority of the Christians who are themselves a minority of the citizens - will be too small to be effective. In practice it will have to attach itself to the un-Christian party nearest to it in beliefs about means [to an admittedly desirable end]… Whatever it calls itself, it will represent, not Christendom, but a part of Christendom. The principle that unites it to its political allies will not be theological. It will have no authority to speak for Christianity… It will not simply be a part of Christendom, but a part claiming to speak for the whole. By the mere act of calling itself the Christian Party it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal… The danger of mistaking our merely natural, though perhaps legitimate, enthusiasms for holy zeal, is always great… The demon inherent in every party is at all times ready to disguise himself as the Holy Ghost… (“Meditations on the Third Commandment,” from God in the Dock)

As I wrote to one parishioner who contacted me about that bulletin announcement: In what seems to be a polarized and paranoid climate, we Christians, of all people, need to model what it is to speak respectfully with each other about our very real concerns over the state of the nation, and the Church–including our differences–without breaking relationships. And I think the idea that, for the sake of peace, we just keep our mouths shut, gives a false sense of unanimity, likely to discourage anyone from expressing what (in her or his opinion) might be a minority opinion, on any subject.

Faithfully,

Chuck Bradshaw +

The whole of the Law is summarized in the one commandment: You must love your neighbor as yourself. If you go snapping at one another and tearing one another to pieces, you will be eaten up by one another. Instead, I tell you, be guided by the Spirit, and you will no longer yield to self-indulgence. (Galatians 5:14-16)