Not since
the end of the Victorian age in Britain had such undefined angst gripped the
Western world as that which took hold soon after September 11, 2001. Terrorism
brought new clarity as the teaching of religious doctrines seemed to simmer for
years before erupting in rage. Obvious connections quickly became
apparent: any religion is dangerous, all should be
equally held to account, as all religions
possess latent tendencies toward extremism.
The 9/11 masterminds’ continual mention of a god and praise to him
prompted a public debate. Religious doctrines supported the governments and
regimes associated with the atrocities in such a dramatic way that avoiding
epistemic study of government policy apart from at least a cursory glance
toward religious teachings would be impossible.
From the divine right of kings to direct democracy
to representative democracy to communism to theocracy, political governance
requires a working theology. Exposing the active theology of statecraft is the
work Jonathan Leeman has taken up in his book, Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule.
For Leeman, statecraft is soulcraft—to borrow the words of George F.
Will in his 1984 book by the same title.
A Battleground Of Gods
What a government does is
directly contingent on the worldview of who is writing the rules. For the rules
(or public policies) themselves are nothing more and nothing less than an
exposed theology of sorts that often masquerades in the garb of secularism. Leeman
states:
If all of life is religious, and
some god or idol rules every square inch of it, it would seem that inside the
public square there is only religious overlap and religious imposition…The
public square is nothing more or less than a battleground of gods, each vying
to push the levers of power in its favor. Which means, from one perspective,
there are no truly secular states, only pluralistic ones.
Atheists would immediately object to Leeman’s assertion, but
anticipating what could be perceived as theonomy (the conjoining of spiritual
and political power in the church) he offers a clarification: “We must
not confuse the separation of church and state with the separation of religion
and politics.”
The genius of James Madison was to set up a government where
religious passions would not hold sway over government actions insofar as the
religion of the people would not become a divisive faction capable of bringing
down the entire government. For Madison, it was the Protestant reformer Martin
Luther who began to decouple and thereby disassemble any church or government
that would not recognize distinct spheres of sovereignty: the state with the
sword for justice and the church with the keys of the kingdom for salvation.
Both important, both viable, but both, in the words of Madison, “a legal
incorporation of religious and civil polity” that remained separate in terms of
role and function.
This framework is the
foundation of the American experiment, and Leeman challenges this foundation
both from a logical and theological perspective. Refusing to concede that
political ideas emerge in a “view from nowhere,” Leeman believes everyone and
every idea is “standing somewhere” and “embedded in some cultural perspective,
identity, and tradition of rationality and justice.” Therefore, secular
liberalism “does not offer some neutral brand of justice or neutral divide
between public and private.”
He
offers a clarification: ‘We must not confuse the separation of church and state
with the separation of religion and politics.’
The issue of slavery in America could not withstand any sort of
relegation to a private sphere of religion amidst the very public outcry
against the oppression of thousands bought and sold as chattel. Ironically,
many self-identifying orthodox Christians were obstacles to emancipation. Yet
slavery struck at the heart of an American public theology and forced the
nation to grapple with the exact boundaries of the private/public dichotomy so
deeply ingrained in the American system of government.
In the end, American politics was deeply informed by a biblical
theology where texts of Holy Scripture became the impetus for freedom and
forever changed the way social policy and justice would be understood in
American public life.
All About Worldview
For Leeman, it is all about worldview. Affirming philosopher
Brendan Sweetman’s statement that “secularism is just as much a religion as any traditional religion,”
he builds a different framework where the Bible and the local church become
an alternative political community that stands in stark contrast to its world
of residence. He does so by first striking at the root of what he perceives as
a serious error in the thinking of John Rawls and his theories of justice and
political liberalism.
He
builds a different framework where the Bible and the local church become an
alternative political community that stands in stark contrast to its world of
residence.
Rawls’ widely accepted position of neutrality in matters of public
reason assert that persons must maintain neutrality in political matters and
not allow metaphysical (read religious) doctrines to cloud the judgment of the
public good. Ever the provocateur, Leeman moves right toward the heart of the
matter as he engages with one of Rawls’ chief examples of the irrelevancy of
religion – the conversion of Saul of Tarsus to Paul the Apostle.
Rawls asserts any internal or spiritual change did not alter
Paul’s relationship to Caesar or the Roman government thus circumventing any
possible objection to the position of neutrality as the foundation for
religious freedom. Believing that not only can the political and the spiritual
be separated, Rawls
maintains they must be separated to maintain universal ethical norms for the
public interest.
Leeman will have none of it. The “I” of the
Pharisee Saul was transformed all the way down when he became the apostle Paul
(see Galatians 2:20), contra Rawls. One only need read the book of
Acts to see how much Paul changed from Saul politically. Doesn’t the book
conclude with Paul under house arrest, not waging war against Christians?
The Threat Churches Pose
Throughout the book, Leeman maintains that the consensus between
Protestant and Enlightenment thought has produced a confusion that is now
eroding the very religious liberty the American founders sought to protect. As the
culture wars escalate, so does the possibility the constitutional order
established to prohibit religious persecution will actually be used against
religious people whose theological beliefs lie outside a rapidly expanding
cultural consensus.
‘Churches
do not need to take up arms…they only need to oppose the gods upon which a
nation’s political and economic institutions depend.’
Herein lies the looming crisis. Sooner or later the cultural
consensus will not hold, and decisions must be made. Those decisions (also
known as laws) will directly impact and curtail religious belief and expression
in the nation. Not naïve to the coming crisis, Leeman believes the answer will
not be to simply return “to the Founders or to Locke as a solution to the
culture wars.”
Rather, he believes the United States is seeing the fulfillment of
the prediction made by George Washington and John Adams of what would happen
“should their philosophy of government be inhabited by an unreligious and
unvirtuous people.” Why? Because “churches do not need to take up arms against the
state in order to pose a threat to the state; they only need to oppose the gods
upon which a nation’s political and economic institutions depend.” And oppose
them they do.
The Colony Of Heaven
Leeman’s work is not primarily an engagement with political theory
or political philosophy. It is a work of theology. The Bible is the key
specimen of investigation, and the covenantal structure of the Bible forms the
path forward both in understanding the problem at hand and how a local church
might represent the answer to escalating tensions in politics. His examination
of the covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and finally what the
Bible terms the “new covenant” form the basis of political understanding and
engagement on different terms.
He
believes the ‘political hopes of the world rest upon the local church–in its
life together.’
As the title suggests, the local church is to be seen as an
“embassy of Christ’s rule.” Leeman realizes that prevailing notions of a local
church are largely unknown as to the significance of all that churches are and
can be in a community. He believes that ultimately the “political hopes of the
world rest upon the local church–in its life together.” This startling
statement tacitly rebukes the prowess of legislative chambers where politicians
seek to make the world anew. In ways that continually reinforce the fact that
the most important realms of life lie outside the ability of men and women to
legislate, the great hope offered to the world by the church is a different kind
of politics.
Leeman believes the church to be a place where “aliens, strangers,
and unwelcome immigrants” are present. It is a politics that “expects, even
embraces, persecution” because it is a community who has submitted themselves
to a crucified King who laid down his life for them so that they might lay down
their lives for one another. In the end, the church is the colony of heaven
where war is no more, as men and women from differing political perspectives
and cultures “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning
hooks.”
Douglas
Baker is Vice-President of Communications at the Commonwealth Foundation.
