Christians in government in a pluralistic society — part 3

This will be my last piece in a discussion on Christians in government in a pluralistic society. So, let us look back at our founding a moment.

Much too much time, paper, and ink have been used on debating whether or not this country was founded as a Christian country. All the research appears to show two things. One, some of the Founding Fathers most certainly were Christian and thought of this as a Christian country to be run on Christian standards. Two, some of the Founding Fathers were humanists or deists who thought of this country as a country in which personal freedom could abound without the strictures of the European States. But, they certainly had two things in common.

One was a common British culture that was based on Christianity. Even the humanists among the Founders had a personal morality that would have been vastly in accord with the majority of Christians of that time. Thus, there was not the same tug-of-war that would have ensued had the colonies been half British and half Indian Hindu. Or, imagine colonies of which five were “Christian,” four were “Hindu” and four were “Islamic.” One can certainly imagine the fights if eight out of the thirteen colonies had been in favor of polygamy! That common culture meant that many arguments were avoided, and it does certainly mean that the foundation of this country was a common Judeo-Christian culture, but that does not mean that this was founded necessarily as a Christian country. Certainly some of the Founding Fathers thought that that is what they were doing, but some of the others clearly had no such idea, as they were deists. Nevertheless, a common culture led to common laws which were Judeo-Christian. So, in that sense, it is indeed clear that this was conceived of as a Christian country, though the deists would have conceived of this in the broadest possible terms.

The second item in common is that each and everyone of the Founders agreed that they did not want either a theocratic state or what we would today call an Orwellian state, that is a state ruled by any particular religion or by any particular philosophy. They wanted to ensure not only freedom of worship, but also freedom of speech, of the press, etc. Their experience, coming out of the multiple European persecutions and inquisitions, was that they would ensure that no such would happen again. That is, they were united in the idea that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”

The problem is that the culture underlying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is, and has been, in the midst of strong change. And this has brought some tremendous challanges to theologically conservative Christians. In many parts of the USA there is no longer any such thing as a common Judeo-Christian culture. The broad agreement that there was between Christian and humanist or deist at the founding of this country is going away. I see it likely that within the not too far future, there may very well be a set of laws that will not be accord with theologically conservative Christian teaching. Let me be clear, I do not mean that there will be overt persecution of any kind. If a large majority of the population of this country were to no longer hold to theologically conservative Christian viewpoints, it would not be surprising if laws were changed to be more in accord with their beliefs. That is what it means to have a majority vote, and that is not necessarily persecution. We tend to overuse that term at our peril.

But, it would certainly make life most uncomfortable for theologically conservative Christians. Let me give you one example. I mentioned polygamy earlier. Let us say that a future majority decides that polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage are all viable options and legalizes them. Just as elementary and high school educators are forbidden to speak positively about gay couples in several states, it would probably become true that they would be–in such a future–forbidden to speak against polygyny or polyandry, etc. One can see some of that already in some European countries. That would not be either persecution or religious repression per se, but it would certainly have that indirect effect, would it not?

At that point, it would be doubtful that a theologically conservative Christian legislator who promised to work against that law would be elected, as the majority would be horrified with him/her and would consider that person a radical. In the same way, a theologically conservative Christian judge would have to rule based upon laws with which s/he profoundly disagreed. That is not a pleasant future to consider.

What would be our options? Well, frankly, we might have to take the option of various of the pre-Constantine Fathers. We might have to say that, at that point, it might not be appropriate for a Christian to serve as magistrate or legislator. The other option would be to study how theologically conservative Christians handle being members of the legislature and judiciary in countries such as India. How do they handle the conflicts between faith and a majority non-Christian culture?

One final thought. We need to be very careful about using the threat of excommunication on either our judiciary or our legislators. There are clearly times when it is merited. If you openly support abortion when the Church says that this is mortal for your soul, then you ought not to be surprised at the consequences. But, let us be careful. If there is no way to get a ban on abortion, but a legislator is able to support a bill that simply diminishes it, we need to be cautious on insisting that the legislator be all or nothing. Sometimes small steps lead to big gains. That is the way a legislature runs in any free country. Let us be careful to distinguish between the legislator-sinner and the legislator who is attempting to do what s/he can with the present reality. The same would be true of a judge who is duty bound to follow precedent, or the direct order of a higher court. Let’s be careful how many unnecessary martyrs we create. Either that, or we need to return to Tertullian and say that a theologically conservative Christian may not be a magistrate, which is certainly an option.

I am not in any way giving up. I certainly trust that the Lord can bring about another Great Awakening, a true one, not one that is simply flash and conference attendance, but one that truly changes the behavior of this country. Yet, there exists the strong possibility that we may need to be prepared to face a culture that is no longer accomodating or friendly toward theologically conservative Christians. Again, this does not necessarily mean hostile, but certainly one that approves, openly and legally, behaviors and mores that are not consonant with historic Judeo-Christian culture. If such were the case, it may someday become true, as Tertullian and Hippolytus commented, that it may not be possible for a Christian to be part of such a government. But, again, I would say let’s see what Christians in India and other Christian-minority countries do.