The old canard about Roman Catholics in the U.S. was that they put loyalty to a foreign prince (the pope, who still is a prince within the Vatican’s 150 square acres and its very big bank) above the Constitution. For some reason, except for the Covenanters U.S. Protestants didn’t seem to think that their allegiance to Christ as king and submission to him as lawgiver jeopardized their loyalty to the Constitution or their patriotism.
The problem is still with us — the Protestant one, that is (more to come on the Roman Catholic aspect). If your religious identity is so deep-down diving that it is going to kick in practically any moment that you are in power, then shouldn’t citizens who don’t share your faith worry that you are going to rule in a way that contradicts the religious neutrality that the Constitution tries to adopt (impossible though it may be for all of those first-principle folks). Here’s an example:
I’m a conservative before I’m a Republican. I was once even an elected Republican. But before I’m a father or husband, I am a Christian. My politics have to be balanced by my faith. That faith requires me to put faith, hope, mercy, and grace ahead of much, including a lot of short term political gain. And sometimes that requires me to rely on Christ for justice, not the government.
Eschatology is the study of end times. It is the one area of biblical study people often view in their own time. In the 1800′s with the rise of the Great Awakening, students of eschatology viewed the end times rather favorably. The whole world would come to Christ, many of them thought. I view the ends times more pessimistically. I think there’ll be many more through the pearly gates than I want, but a whole lot less than I expect. And I think as we descend into more cultural and societal chaos on the road to the last day, it will be more and more important for those of us in politics to decide which comes first, faith or politics. They can be balanced. I try, sometimes fail, but keep trying. A growing number of people on the right are no longer trying to balance. They are either going completely out of the public square, or all in without Christ in their heart or on their tongue thinking they can just visit him on Sunday.
We should find balance. We may fail, but we should keep trying. We should not recede from the public square and a growing number of conservatives are showing more willingness to drive from the public square those who urge greater measures of Christian grace and charity than they prefer.
Why does this fellow feel he needs to regard political problems as religious? The challenges that confront the U.S. government have almost nothing to do with the difficulties that confront pastors and church officers. So if you are a legislator or president or judge and you hold office by virtue of being elected by Americans, not just the Christian ones, then don’t you have an obligation to execute your office in a way that is in the best interests of the people you serve (Americans and American-Christians)? But if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?
I get it. Politicians face ethical dilemmas but those are not the same as a personal preference or conviction on the one hand and what is best for everyone on the other. A Major League Baseball umpire may have grown up as a Phillies’ fan, but if he is behind the plate for a Phils-Pirates game, he’s supposed to call the same strike zone for both pitchers. An elder in a church may love his wife, but if she comes before session owing to complaints from other mothers about poor performance during nursery duty, the elder has to either recuse himself or apply a standard that he might not apply at home (if a relative of the BB’s his rule at home is likely even less forgiving).
So doesn’t the same apply to Christian legislators who would seek public office in the greatest nation on God’s green earth? Don’t they have to act in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers?
Old Life 
Indeed. BTW, a very good two-kingdom sermon yesterday (8/31/14) from I Samuel 15 on warfare by someone with no real dog in the inter-reformed fight. Frankly, IMO, it’s just the obvious reading of Scripture and how the Kingdom of God differs from the Sinai administration (cf. WCF 7), and yet with the same continuity of the Law of Love. The point is that our individual and civic ethical responsibilities must differ at points if we are both to die to self AND support a just society.
http://www.parkstreet.org/library/sermons/speaker/Gordon-Hugenberger
Bias alert: Hugenberger is an old mentor and friend of mine.
LikeLike
Bonhoeffer—-This distinction between private person and bearer of an office as normative for my behavior is foreign to Jesus Christ. The Lord does not say a word about such a distinction. Jesus Christ addresses his disciples as people who have left everything behind to follow him. ‘Private’ and ‘official’ spheres are all completely subject to Jesus’ command. The word of Jesus claimed them undividedly.
mcmark–Visible churches need an apocalyptic stance that Kuyperians will dismiss as sectarian other-worldliness. But Christians need to recognize that the life of a visible congregation has its own new covenant standard which is not the same as the abcs which still in power over the world.
Jeremiah 45: 3 ‘You have said, “Woe is me, because the Lord has added misery to my pain! I am worn out with groaning and have found no rest.”’ 4 “This is what you are to say to him: ‘This is what the Lord says: What I have built I am about to demolish, and what I have planted I am about to uproot—the whole land !5 But as for you, do you seek great things for yourself? Stop seeking! For I am about to bring disaster
Colossians 2: 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and disgraced them publicly; He triumphed over them by Him.20 If you died with the Messiah to the abc’s of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations: 21 “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”? 22 All these regulations refer to what is destroyed by being used up; they are commands and doctrines of men.
Hebrews 2: 5 For He has not subjected to angels the world to come that we are talking about. 6 But one has somewhere testified:
What is man that You remember him,
or the son of man that You care for him?
7 You made him lower than the angels
for a short time;
You crowned him with glory and honor
8 and subjected everything under his feet.
For in subjecting everything to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. As it is, we do not yet see everything subjected to him.
I Corinthians 15: 23 But each in his own order: Christ, the first fruits; afterward, at His coming, those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy to be abolished is death. 27 For God has put everything under His feet
We are not in glory yet, but I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where we will “labor” in the age to come. And I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where any Christian is called in this age to kill criminals. Submit to “them”.
LikeLike
Read the whole column by Erikson. He is a political activist, which as far as I know is a legitimate calling. He is also a Christian. As far as I know, he is not ordained in any church. Nothing in my interpretation of 2K precludes believers from getting on a soapbox (or a blog) and advocating their political position. Erikson’s complaint was not about any problem he had as an (former!!) office holder but rather about what he deemed to be uncharitable comments on his blog in three specific cases. For example, he has been a strong voice against liberalizing immigration laws, yet when he expressed support for private charity aiding the recent influx of children, he was roundly criticized for deserting the cause, and those and similar comments in other issues caused him pain and frustration.
I only rarely read Erikson, but I have never found anything in his writing that leads me to think he is anything other than a man who thinks he can pursue his vocation and still honor his faith. Not always easy to do, I know because I’ve been there as as I’m sure other of your readers have. Perhaps the part of the article you quoted doesn’t have all the limitations and nuances you think are appropriate, but most cries from the heart wouldn’t.
LikeLike
So doesn’t the same apply to Christian legislators who would seek public office in the greatest nation on God’s green earth? Don’t they have to act in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers?
Yes, but these days that often requires opposing the God-deniers and other forces of modernity that seek to replace the natural law with dangerous and harmful ideology.
“Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.“
LikeLike
Dan, but why is it Christian to support liberal immigration policy? Israel was supposed to (and still does) maintain tight borders. If that was good for God’s people then and if we are going to the Bible for U.S. policy, why the liberal position?
LikeLike
DGH, who said anything about a liberal policy? I don’t support anything that is even a little bit liberalized. Erikson supports a restrictive policy, but did say he was for feeding and clothing the children who have recently come across the border. I didn’t read his original post that led to the post you excerpted, but I think he was talking about private charity. That is what he got pushback for. In all fairness to him, I think you are over reading what he wrote, or at least focusing too much on the part of the post you quoted. I’m maybe more sympathetic to what are his motives than I should be.
LikeLike
Dan, I hear you. I’m just not sure what Erick’s faith has to do with this. It doesn’t help.
LikeLike
DGH, I’ve known dozens of people like Erikson who I would characterize as political activists who happen to be Christian. They struggle to reconcile the two. I tend to think they really need to chill and just play by the rules anyone else is subject to, but that is coming from someone whose political activism over 30 years has been on behalf of warm blooded, fee paying clients. I respect folks like Erikson infinitely more than I do someone whose terminal degree is from a seminary and thinks he needs to make every square inch captive, etc. (Just for the record, I find Erikson too populist for my taste.)
LikeLike
Dan, so you refuse cold blooded fee paying clients?
LikeLike
Now that I’m retired, yes. Previously, not too often.
LikeLike
By similar arguments and principles Christians would make unfit lawyers in the U.S. justice system since they apparently need to convince themselves of guilt or innocence before they could represent someone. They could not give someone their best effort at representation if they thought their client was guilty. It would not be enough to give a client one’s best defense and let the courts figure out the guilt question, especially if they “knew” their client was guilty.
LikeLike
If your Hypothetical Umpire, who grew up a Phillies fan, now calls the Phillies vs. Pirates game I am praying, as a Pirate fan, that he is a Christian Umpire.
LikeLike