The really cool conference — though, how cool is Nashville compared to Manhattan — sponsored by Q has generated some discussion about the common good and what stake Christians have in it. Andy Crouch thinks Christians should promote the common good since it will begin rather than end conversations. I’m not sure how defining the good as God will work (though I can imagine how food and sharing a meal might):
the common good allows us to stake out our Christian convictions about what is good for humans—and to dare our neighbors to clarify their own convictions. “In the simplest sense,” Bradley Lewis said, “the common good is God. It is God who satisfies what people need, individually and communally.” Adopting the language of the common good means owning this bedrock Christian belief and proclaiming it to our neighbors. If we are not offering our neighbors the ultimate common good—the knowledge and love of God—we are not taking the idea of the common good seriously.
If Crouch is at all representative of evangelicals, and if born-again Protestants are going to follow Joe Carter in rejecting civil religion, they are going to have to give up identifying the common good with God. Carter is properly worried about how void the word “god” is in “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance:
There is a vast and unbridgeable chasm between America’s civil religion and Christianity. If we claim that “under God” refers only to the Christian, Trinitarian conception of God we are either being unduly intolerant or, more likely, simply kidding ourselves. Do we truly think that the Hindu, Wiccan, or Buddhist is claiming to be under the same deity as we are? We can’t claim, as Paul did on Mars Hill, that the “unknown god” they are worshiping is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They have heard of Jesus — and reject him as God.’
The Pledge is a secular document and the “under god” is referring to the Divinity of our country’s civil religion. Just as the pagan religion of the Roman Empire was able to incorporate other gods and give them familiar names, the civil religion provides an umbrella for all beliefs to submit under one nondescript, fill-in-the-blank term.
So, then, should we give up religion in public life? Of course, not (even if a full-blown use of God in the Trinitarian sense is going to be divisive):
Don’t get me wrong: I think we need to stand firm on allowing religion into the “naked public square.” But we should do so defending our real religious beliefs rather than a toothless imitation. If we pray in the public square, we should have no qualms about using the true name of the God to whom we are praying.
So much for the common (whether it’s good or not).
Not even David Cameron can get away with mentioning an effete Anglicanism without taking a beating (as reported by Tim Keller’s biggest Scottish fan):
One wonders if our Prime Minister, David Cameron will be allowed to say his latest remarks on the British Broadcasting Corporation.
They have certainly caused a furore which has resulted in a letter to The Telegraph signed by 55 of the great and good, who warn of dire consequences in the Prime Minister voicing the unthinkable. Saying Britain is a Christian country has “negative consequences” and encourages sectarianism.
“In his call for more evangelism, Mr Cameron is exclusively tying himself to one faith group, inevitably to the exclusion of others,” opined Elizabeth O’Casey, Policy and Research Office at the National Secular Society. She also warned us that we are moving away from the concept of all of us being “rights-bearing citizens first and foremost, with democratic autonomy and equality, regardless of which faith they happen to have, or not have”.
Britain is apparently in danger of turning from this nice, tolerant secular country into some kind of European Syria, torn apart by sectarian strife. Beware of the Christian Jihad, the Tartan Taleban and the Charismatic suicide bombers!
To this Free Church pastor’s credit, he is not overly edified by Cameron’s vapid Christian affirmation:
I will not comment on Mr Cameron’s politics but I seriously hope they are much better than his theology. He states: “I am not one for doctrinal purity, and I don’t believe it is essential for evangelism about the church’s role in our society or its importance.” But Jesus is for doctrinal purity. It really does matter that he is the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, that he did miracles, that he rose from the dead, that he is coming back as judge and saviour – all good theological statements.
Even so, if a vague Anglican expression cannot avoid public flack, how much are the folks who gather in Nashville deceiving themselves?
Just to illustrate how difficult it is to square any serious faith with the common good, try changing the words on this recent Chamber-of-Commerce-like missive about religious social goods (which sounds a lot like common good):
ReligionIslam, especially communalreligionIslam, provides important benefits for everyone in the liberal state—even the non-religiousMulsim.ReligionIslam encourages people to associate with and feel responsible for others, to engage with them in common endeavors.ReligionIslam promotes altruism and neighborliness, and mitigates social isolation.ReligionIslam counteracts the tendencies to apathy and self-centeredness that liberalism seems inevitably to create. . . .To be sure,
religionsthe varieties of Islam don’t always encourage civic fellowship; to the extenta religionIslam promotes sedition or violence against other citizens, society does not benefit. And perhaps, as Gerald Russello suggests, the non-religiousMuslims have come so to distrustreligionIslam that they will view its contributions as tainted and objectionable from the start. But in encouraging greater social involvement,religionIslam offers benefits to everyone, believers and non-believers, too. It’s worth reminding skeptics of this when they argue thatreligionIslam, as such, doesn’t merit legal protection.
Why Christians need to find consolation and support from the political or common realm is a mystery (though years of Christendom provide a partial explanation. Sure, pilgrimage is tough and Christ did tell his followers that the world would hate them. So why not simply rely upon the good words of God’s word, the reminder of belonging to Christ in baptism, and the rib-sticking spiritual food of the Supper rather than constantly looking for the world to think well of us?
Old Life 
It seems to me that the Q crowd finds “consolation and support” in communing with fellow elites. They also seem to get high on diversity — with speakers ranging from Rachel Held Evans (yeah, her), to Anthony Bradley, to Russell Moore, to the Republican governor of Tennessee. Not to mention a nun named Joan of Arc, a puppeteer. and a leather designer-craftsman.
http://qnashville.qideas.org/
LikeLike
I like the final paragraph of this post, for I think it summarizes well a lot of what you’ve been saying on this blog. Too many Christians are seeking the world’s approval. You are right, Jesus said that the world will hate Christians, but for some reason many Christians still believe that if they have the right political involvement, the right music, the right art, and the right thick-rimmed glasses, then Christianity will finally gain acceptance by the depraved masses.
LikeLike
So are you saying that it is not in the best interest of our neighbours to hear about the Triune God, to be told of Jesus? Does that not constitute a good?
Nothing in the quotes you posted says these people are looking for the world’s approval. In fact he says the opposite: that Christians should go into the public sphere and proclaim the true God whether others like it or not. It will certainly be divisive, but it is also for everyone’s good that they hear about Christ. No?
LikeLike
Michael,
You left out skinny jeans.
LikeLike
If I’m hated, all I ask is that it for the right reason and not for something stupid or offensive that I’ve done. If I’m acting like a Christian should and I’m hated for that, that’s o.k. Some are so depraved they will hate us merely for being Christians. Most will respond to us in a positive way if we are showing sincere concern for them and displaying kindness, though.
LikeLike
Erik, you are correct, let’s be disliked for the right reasons (Peter wrote something about that).
Also, let’s be accepted for the right reasons. It is a great thing when an unbeliever accepts Christianity for it’s doctrine and worship. It’s not so good when he accepts it because it’s perceived as culturally relevant, cool, hip, fixes global problems, has been well branded, and has a few slick celebrities promoting it.
LikeLike
My complaint with Crouch’s article is that it is so conference-y. The whole “common good” idea is not well developed. Does he mean “love your neighbor”? Is he referring to “common grace”? Or is this something more comprehensive, including Christian social policies, politics, etc — something more like Christendom”?
His references to Pope Leo XIII seem rather inauspicious.
How about this for a test — if you are going to late medieval Catholicism for your Christian social thought, you are probably going to end up with something like Christendom. Just so ya know…
LikeLike
Michael,
Indeed. Problem arise if people are brought in under false pretenses. The soil proves to be shallow or rocky and the seed does not take root and produce a crop. Better to till the soil completely and hope that good seed takes root and flourishes in a few.
LikeLike
Alexander, “So are you saying that it is not in the best interest of our neighbours to hear about the Triune God, to be told of Jesus? Does that not constitute a good?” How exactly is that a common good for a common life together with neighbors who don’t profess the Triune God?
You’re making my point. Thank you.
Mind you, I’d much prefer your full-blown profession to some sort of gee-golly what a wonderful world we share with everyone outlook. But you’re not giving me much hope for a shared life together with non-believers.
LikeLike
The notion that God is the “common good” for both believers and unbelievers ignores an important biblical truth: namely, that God relates to unbelievers as an offended Judge, and even now His wrath is being revealed against them (Rom. 1:18ff). On the other hand, God is indeed the “common good” of believers, and of believers only, for in Christ He relates to us believers as Redeemer and Savior.
Of course, we may relate God to the “common good” if we have in view His “common grace” or benevolent providence whereby He causes His sun to shine on the just and the unjust and sends rain upon the righteous and the unrighteous. But even these temporal, common grace blessings (which are indeed, of themselves, good gifts of God and tokens of His benevolence) nonetheless ultimately only add to the guilt and condemnation of the wicked reprobate, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness and refuse to give thanks to their Creator. Just as God causes all things (even evil things) to ultimately work out for the good of His elect (Rom. 8:28), so conversely, and by implication, He ultimately causes all things (even good things, including the “common good”) to work out toward the damnation of the reprobate.
LikeLike
Michael H.: “It is a great thing when an unbeliever accepts Christianity for it’s doctrine and worship.”
GW: If an unbeliever truly accepts Christianity for it’s doctrine and worship, wouldn’t that mean he has become a believer? (Just saying.)
Michael H.: It’s not so good when he accepts it because it’s perceived as culturally relevant, cool, hip, fixes global problems, has been well branded, and has a few slick celebrities promoting it.
GW: Seems to me the difference is this — the hip, culturally-relevant crowd covets a respected place at the table as an equal conversation partner in mainstream culture, in the hopes that through its’ “influence” it can “transform” and Christianize the culture; on the other hand, biblical Christianity has no illusions about being accepted at the table of mainstream culture; instead, it aims at the conversion of unbelievers within the mainstream culture, that they might join with us at the table of the Lord.
LikeLike
I believe the bottom line is that old school means-of-gracers believe that believing, joining one’s self to a local church, worshiping and fellowshipping regularly, striving to live a holy life in accordance with God’s law and the law of the land — living quietly and peaceably — is just enough for most of us. More is required of officers,of course. Some of us will be more well known, some will be influential, but it’s just not the biblical norm. Or the biblical requirement.
LikeLike
They didn’t call it “cool” in the 18th and 19th century, but this celebrity-elite to culture transformer track is nothing new. Indeed, someone (DGH?) has posited that Xians invented and were first to exploit the modern concept of celebrity — think Whitefield and Spurgeon, who were bonafide international superstars. The Brits in the early 20th century sort of invented the conference culture. And Billy Graham raised the bar and destroyed what was left of regard for ordinary, means of grace ministry. And all celebrities (think Hollywood) have to get involved in world saving and cultural matters. Thanks to Finney for this, who Graham had an unhealthy regard for.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour,
“If an unbeliever truly accepts Christianity for it’s doctrine and worship, wouldn’t that mean he has become a believer? (Just saying.)”
Yes, exactly. That’s what I meant.
“Two Tables” (maybe “2Tables”) is a concept that you could brand, write about, and hold conferences for.
LikeLike
Isn’t “Common Good” a code phrase for “redeeming the culture”? Seems to me that is why a number of PCA folk are involved in this conference.
By the way, didn’t you know that the Gospel renews everything?
http://byfaithonline.com/redeemer-church/
LikeLike
Mrs. Clinton offered up a “common good” Christianity conversation starter earlier today:
Clinton said she struggled as a young woman between her father’s insistence on self-reliance and her mother’s concern for compassion. She reconciled those in the Biblical story of Jesus instructing his disciples to feed 5,000 people with just five loaves of bread and two fish.
“The disciples come to Jesus and suggest they send away the people to find food to fend for themselves. But Jesus said, `No. You feed them,'” Clinton said. “He was teaching a lesson about the responsibility we all share.”
LikeLike
RL, and people wonder why we keep women out of the pulpit (kidding feminists — I’d write humorless feminists but that would be redundant — as in “how many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?” “It’s not funny.”)
LikeLike
Shouldn’t Joe Carter be worried about a National Day of Prayer?
LikeLike