International readers of this blog may or may not be aware that tomorrow, Tuesday, 2 November 2010, the United States will be holding its “midterm elections.” This means that these elections are coming at the middle point of the four year term of the current president, Barack Obama.
We have a bicameral (“two-house”) legislature, composed of The Senate and The House of Representatives. Senators are elected for six year terms. The senatorial terms are staggered so that, every two years, approximately one third of the seats come up for election. The seats held by the United States Representatives are open for election every two years.
The significance of this current election is that there is a very real possibility that the opposition party, the Republicans, may take control from the current majority party, the Democrats, of one or both houses of the legislature.
I do, of course, have a position on this, but that is of no consequence here. This posting is to address the question of political involvement by Christians. Some say that Christians should have no political involvement at all, not even to vote. Others have enthusiastically jumped, feet first, into the political system and come dangerously close to implying or even saying that there is a “true Christian” political stance. Some even identify the political party which they say is Christian.
The first Christians existed under a worldwide political system, the Roman Empire, which brought peace and uniformity to most of the known world. It brought modern roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, laws, and a system of justice. It did this by bloody conquest, brutal suppression of dissent, eradication of entire cultures, and slave labor. The system favored and rewarded the rich and the powerful and was corrupt from top to bottom. Christians and other minorities who were even suspected of disloyalty were openly persecuted.
Listen to what Paul said about it.
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” Romans 13:1-7.
Paul did not stutter or equivocate. He was giving an interpretation based on what Jesus had earlier said.
The Pharisees opposed Jesus. They tried by flattery to put him off his guard and soften him up for their real intent, a figurative knife in the ribs. The asked him a question to which either answer they anticipated would have enraged someone. As he always did, Jesus did the unexpected, turning their figurative knife blade back at them.
“Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men. 7Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard [these words], they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.” Matthew 22:15-22
Whose picture was on the coin? Who had it in their pocket? Why was it in their pocket? Did they control it or did it control them?
The Christian faith is full of paradoxes; things which seem to be mutually exclusive, but which both are true. This is one of them. Jesus linked and separated the Church and the State. His message on this: My Kingdom is first but because you belong to My Kingdom, you must fulfill your duties to theirs.
Government did not give us God, God gave us government. We can’t advance the Kingdom of God by politics, but we can use politics instead of letting it use us. Taking personal Christian responsibility for our votes and civic involvement we can honor God.
Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput says it well. If, like me, you are a Protestant, read “Catholic” in the sense of The Church, the εκκλησία.
“First, all political leaders draw their authority from God. We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil. In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions. The truest respect we can show to civil authority is the witness of our Catholic faith and our moral convictions, without excuses or apologies.” Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M., Cap.
Posts
One of the searches which resulted in a visit to this post asked about the meaning of this current election in the United States. Aside from the obvious, political control of new legislation and spending, the main philosophical issue is whether political power should be centered in the nation's capital or more in the individual states. Another issue is whether taxes should be raised or lowered; which would be more stimulatory to the economy? If government spending is to be cut, what government services will have to be reduced or eliminated to cover the reduction in revenue? Other issues are more philosophical and include same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, abortion, gun control, the relationship between the churches and the state, the limits of free speech, whether or not the government should subsidize or even nationalize some industries, etc.
ReplyDelete