About us
We are the steering group of Christians in Politics Portal (CPP). We believe that the Christian values and the principles of our redeemer Jesus Christ are very important for society and politics.
January 2010 In this article, James Skillen intends to define the concept of “Christian democracy” and reflects on its use referring to the existing negative connotations of the concept and historical abuses of Christians in political power positions.
Christians are often associated with religious fundamentalists. Skillen seeks an answer to the question whether Christianity, from its deepest roots, drives toward public justice for all citizens, including equal, public-legal treatment for people of all faiths. The Scriptures recognize the legitimacy of government, but there is no evidence that Christians are called to use government to impose Christianity on the public. From a biblical perspective, governments have the obligation to do justice to all, especially those who have little or no power, rather than on ways to keep believers in control of unbelievers. This defines the “Christian-democratic” approach to politics and government.
Can the word “Christian” ever convey a positive connotation when used in conjunction with politics and government, or does it necessarily carry the negative baggage of past imperialisms? Is a phrase such as “Christian democracy,” for example, an oxymoron, which Webster defines as “a combination of contradictory or incongruous words,” or can it stand on its own with integrity?
Americans champion democracy and many American Christians believe this is a Christian nation. In that regard, the combination of words hardly sounds oxymoronic. Yet the more we gain historical distance from the era of slavery, anti-Catholicism, and male-dominated White-Anglo-Saxon Protestantism (WASP), the more it appears that “Christian America” is a holdover from “Christian Europe.”
Today, we repeatedly hear and read warnings about the threat of the Religious Right to re-impose Christianity on American society. Religious “fundamentalism” of any kind is regularly associated, if not equated, with radical Islamism. Christianity may be something fine and constructive if it remains confined to its worship services and its helping ministries to the poor and needy. But as soon as there is any sign of Christians pushing for political power, the warning flags go up.
There can be no doubt that Christians (and church institutions) have, in the name of Jesus Christ, used power unjustly to abuse and subordinate others (including other Christians). The first political act by Christians today, therefore, should be to repent of those practices and institutions of injustice that we and our ancestors have supported. Yet such an act does not by itself answer the question of the just use of political power. To assume that if Christianity is disconnected from democratic power justice will automatically be achieved is a foolish and mistaken assumption. Think of all the injustice that has been perpetrated by secular-democratic nationalists, socialists, and liberals.
The question about Christianity and politics, then, is more profound, as is the question about the relation of political power to any set of deep convictions people may hold. The question is whether Christianity, from its deepest roots, drives toward public justice for all citizens, including equal, public-legal treatment for people of all faiths.
This is the question that calls for serious examination today. And the place to start is with the Christian scriptures. For there is no evidence in the Bible that Jesus Christ and his apostles called on government to impose Christianity on the public at large or urged Christians to use political power to gain privileges for themselves. Jesus recognized the legitimacy of government and spoke of God as the one who sends rain and sunshine on the just and unjust alike. He also told his disciples it was not their responsibility to separate believers from unbelievers in the field of the world. Paul urged Christians to recognize and submit to governments as ministers appointed by God to encourage those who do good and to punish those who do wrong. And he admonished fellow believers to live at peace with everyone insofar as it depends on them.
Both the Old and the New Testaments speak of the accountability of governments to God directly and not via submission to the church. Israel, of course, had its own governments, and those in power were repeatedly called to account for not doing justice to the people and even to the aliens within. The greatest body of biblical wisdom on government (in the historical books, Psalms, the prophets, and the wisdom literature) focus attention on government’s obligation to do justice to all, especially those who have little or no power, rather than on ways to keep believers in control of unbelievers. When Job speaks of the awe he inspired as a governing official it was because “I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him . . . . I put on righteousness as my clothing; justice was my robe and my turban. I was eyes to the blind and feet to the lame. I was a father to the needy, I took up the case of the stranger” (29:12-16).
A phrase like “Christian democracy” should not be an oxymoron. In fact, I would contend that Christianity, properly mined, is the very fount of an open society offering equal treatment to people of all faiths, political participation and representation for all citizens, strong protections against the abuse of power by government, and provisions to protect the rights of non-government organizations and institutions on an equal-treatment basis. If this is true, then the critical re-reading of history must continue in order to help us understand why and how Christians have accommodated themselves to Roman imperialism, to modern statism and nationalism, and to other means of seeking privileged positions of power.
A “Christian-democratic” approach to politics and government should carry a banner that says, “We will never claim that our deeds or policy proposals are God’s will, but only that they represent our humble human effort to respond to God’s call to do justice.” The will of God is God’s to reveal. If our modest efforts to promote justice in an open public square can mature into a multi-faceted program of just statecraft, then perhaps one day an explicitly Christian approach to politics will be respected both at home and abroad as an honorable and valuable part of the political process.
James W. Skillen,
Editor Periodic Review Christian in Politics Portal
Former President Center for Public Justice, USA.
You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.
Tongeren, J.T. (Jonathan) van | Placed on: 02-10-2010 12:18 | |
"Both the Old and the New Testaments speak of the
accountability of governments to God directly and not via
submission to the church." This is true of course but, lest we downplay the role of the church in the public/political sphere, I would like to add that the church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). In the New Testament God does not send lightning bolts to warn evil princes, so who will call on the state to act according to the truth if not "the church of the living God"? What might be helpfull is (Bernard de Clairvaux' interpretation of) the 'theory of the two swords' by pope Gelasius I. In that it provides a clear distinction between the authority of the church and the 'potestas' (power does not seem a fully adequate translation, it is more like the German word 'Gewalt' which means both power and violence) of the state. The state and the church are not subordinate to each other but rather on the same level. The church has the highest authority and the state has the monopoly on violence (for Peter did carry a sword, but Jesus told him to sheathe it). Thus state and church needn't roll over with each other trying to get on top, but there can be a balance. To a certain extent this balance has existed historically, but it was disturbed by among other events king Henry VIII of England's divorce of Catherine of Aragon. Edited
Tongeren, J.T. (Jonathan) van has edited
this message on: 02-10-2010 12:20
http://vantongeren.blogspot.com
| ||
