About Me

Name:CRB
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

Theology, Politics, and Where They Meet

Posted by CRB on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:43:51 PM
Some Background to the Issue
The place of Christian theology to the world of politics is one of today’s most frequently debated topics. Questions are raised across the whole spectrum from church submission to government on to government control of the church. It seems that the subject is not without the myriad of opinions that any other controversy would create, and seems to have as many options as there are participants.

Christian theology is generally driven by its future hope. That is, the motivating factor for a Christian’s involvement is eschatological – the Christian’s perspective on the future that the Lord has planned drives the direction that we set and thus how we behave today. But this is not a monolithic position. There are three main perspectives on Christian eschatology and each has its own implications as to the church’s relationship with the political world. And it all revolves around the understanding of what the Millennium is.

The term “amillennial” means that there is no clearly-demarked millennial period when the Lord will rule the earth. The “a” prefix is a negative and indicates “no” millennium. But it’s not really “no” millennium but “no literal” millennium but a “figurative” millennium. That is, the millennium is not a period of time but a condition of time, placing the emphasis on the kingdom rather than on the calendar.

There is a parallel to this known as “post-millennial” theology. The millennium is seen as a past time that is specific but when it is (or was) is unknown until it comes to completion. In one sense there is no known millennium, nothing that can be pre-determined.

Both of these tie the kingdom and implementing the character of the kingdom to the millennium. They see the mission of the church to establish the kingdom and one way they see the kingdom as a household. The household is for the benefit of all even though not all members of the household are family.

Finally, there are the “millennial” theologies that look forward to a future and specific thousand-year reign of Christ. Because they see this kingdom as a future happening they also see the mission of the church as something other than a household. The perspective is to see the evangelistic mission of the church as the first priority. Saving souls takes priority.

There are two primary variations on this theme. The historic premillennialist and the dispensationalist differ with their understanding of the nature of the church and the identity of Israel. For the historic premillennialist the church is the people of faith through all the ages, but for the dispensationalist the church began at Pentecost, even though there have been a people of faith through all the ages.

All of these anticipate the return of Christ. It’s not that He would necessarily return Very Soon Now, but that he might return at any time. For the amillennial and post-millennial theologies, His return is determined more by the suitability of the kingdom as established on earth, being ready for His return. For the premilllennial perspective the kingdom is not of our doing, and His kingdom will be established at the time of His choosing in the future.

While Roman Catholicism has always been post-millennial, during the 19th c. a great deal of Protestantism, both evangelical and liberal, was equally post-millennial. That was the Modern century where Reason attempted to build a better world through social change. Even theologically liberal eschatology looked forward to a better world but through the new liberalism and the new society of Marx’ ideals rather than through the Kingdom of God. These were the “do-gooders” of the era who were parodied in Pollyanna.

Implications and Options

The impact of any theology upon politics can be either direct or indirect. Direct impact can be accomplished when that theology makes direct statements to the subject of politics or when the theology calls for a specific relationship with the area of politics. Indirect impact can take place when the efforts and energies encouraged by a theology have an impact that crosses into the realm of politics.

The outworkings of this relationship can take any of several forms depending on, among other things, the power, receptability, and intentions of each party. As a result, the relationship has taken multiple forms over the centuries and may certainly take additional form in future generations.


Fig. 1: Church and state united

Familiar to many is the complete mix of church and state as seen in England. This is the closest thing to a “theocracy: because the church is completely mixed and in a dominant position.





Fig. 2: Church controlling state

Throughout Europe there was a time when church was seen as dominating state. This was the ecclesiastical organization: Rome, Geneva, the Lutherans. It was not simply the belief system but the power of the church leadership to manipulate events. Rome frequently did this through the withholding of sacramental grace to national leaders. The threat of a loss of salvation, or worse, excommunication, gave great influence over national events.

It’s not so much that the church took the place of the state but that the church held sway over the power of the state. It’s not a theocracy but it is political control




Fig. 3: State controlling church

Then there is the modern view that we know in the US and other nations having a socialist bent. Though the degree may differ, in Europe the church is very much under the hand of government authority. In communist countries the church is either outlawed or under serious scrutiny as it is in China and Cuba. In the US we have a great deal more freedom but there is still some restriction on religious speech as it might affect the realm of politics.

One protestant reaction to this situation created the “free” church. One example is the Evangelical Free Church with a heritage in the Norwegian and Swedish free church movement.




Figure 4: Complete separation

This is the ideal that is stated by a good number of secularists and many in the church. The idea is that neither one will control the other. They may speak to issues that affect the other party but there is no actual, ecclesiastical control by the church and no legislative regulation by the state.




Fig. 5: Jockeying for Position

Reality often gets in the way of providing clean definitions. In the US the church and state are in a constant struggle. Though there are dominionist factions that want to control the state, the more common struggle of the church is to break free from the regulatory control of government.
 

 

Fig. 6: Dialogue

The ideal that I have in mind would be mutual interaction, a touching of influence, a meeting of the minds. Christianity has much to offer the secular world in terms of ethics and related moral issues that are imperatives in today’s society. At the same time we can listen to the voice of government and maintain a civil dialogue.




But reality again gets in the way and on multiple fronts.  Many secularists want to eliminate religion altogether.  Socialists work to place the church under the state thumb.  Dominionists work to control government.  Reconstructionists seek to rebuild some sort of Christian nation.  I suspect that the arguments will go on for generations.

Considerations
So what is the First Amendment about? My understanding is that the goal was to prevent (hence the restriction on Congress) #1, #2, and #3. It certainly is not to create any of #1, #2, or #3. We (most of us, anyway) do not want a church-run state, a state-managed or state-regulated church, or a mix of church and state. Unfortunately it seems that a mild form of #3 is what has been created through the efforts of various organizations.

The end result of eschatology, the nature of the kingdom and the church, affects which of these a church will support. The dominionists are, by their nature, post-millennial and that leads to the direction of church control. The amillennial approach also ends in the direction of church control. But even these can vary from #1 (church-state mix) or #2 (church controlling state).

But though they may tend toward this direction, many protestant amillennialists do not teach this church-state mix but the alternative of social influence. The result is what we know as the “culture war”. In this case the church is not trying to become dominant over government but over social institutions. (The First Amendment does not address this.)

Finally, there is the premillennial and dispensational crowd. By and large, except for the recent flirtation with the culture wars, the premillennial community is first concerned about evangelism. Even with their participation in the culture wars, many like James Dobson still speak of the primacy of the Gospel in their work. It may not be wholly consistent, but it is the reality.

The theological inconsistency of many, as with Dr. Dobson, stems from something really simple: Most people are not theologians. Few people take the time to study history, theology, and philosophy to discover their roots and a consistent direction for their behavior within their stated belief system. It’s part of the condition of the church.

Likewise many secularists and socialists commit the same error. Naively supporting some forms of control they do not realize the potential consequences of their efforts and the damage that can be done to Liberty. This is so because one’s philosophical underpinnings have the same net effect as theology.  Our world views drive us to our behaviors, but we do not always take thought to be as serious as action.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Recipe to Sell Books and Influence Elections

Posted by CRB on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:18:07 AM
Ingredient #1:
There is a group in Washington, D.C., known as the "Fellowship Foundation".  The theology is not orthodox evangelical theology.  The leader is Douglas Coe.   It is a very public group.  As I understand it, it is so public that if you purchase a ticket to the National Prayer Breakfast then you automatically become a member.  Apparently Hillary Clinton is a member and even a participant.
 
Ingredient #2:
The radical Left does not want the Clinton machine back in office.  (Neither does the Right, but that would be another post.)  The Left is today a de facto single-issue machine:  Get the US out of Iraq.  And Hillary is their current enemy.
 
Ingredient #3:
Jeff Sharlet wants to sell books.  He may only make $0.25 per book, but if he can get a million of them out to stores and direct purchasers, there might be some decent income.  (Why write a book if nobody buys it?)
 
Now mix.  Put in the oven.  Add a little heat.
 
Jeff Sharlet has come out with a book:  The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.  The premise is that the Fellowship Foundation is (a) secretive, (b) the real fundamentalist power behind the Religious Right, and (c) is manipulating the processes of government.  This is no conjecture.  In his interviews with the ever-vigilant and always gullible Fred Clarkson, he said the following:

... American fundamentalism really has to be understood as two movements - the Popular Front of televangelists and mass rallies and voter drives, and the elites of groups like The Family.

... they've done an end run around the Democratic process.

Sharlet clearly has little or no clear understanding of historic evangelicalism, or if he does, he decided to set this knowledge aside in order to complete this convoluted attack on Hillary Clinton.

I don't think it is a far stretch to say that the efforts to attack Clinton might go to this extent.  After all, anyone can publish a book and some publishers will print anything for a buck.  But in context, Clarkson seems always to be looking for a way to attack or otherwise humiliate anyone who looks like an orthodox Christian, or, in this case, who would dare associate with them.

This casserole is expected to be finished sometime in late Summer or early Fall.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »