American Christians often wonder exactly how their faith and politics ought to intersect. It’s an understandable confusion, especially for those who value freedom of belief and religious diversity. I often hear that we should “keep politics out of the pulpit,” but doing so is a theological impossibility for those who take Jesus’ teachings seriously because Christianity is inherently political. To put a finer point on it, if your faith isn’t political, you’re not following Jesus. We must understand the political dimensions of our faith as we approach the November election because our democracy is at stake. If the Progressive Christian Movement is going to oppose the misrepresentation of Christian values by the Religious Right, we should understand that Jesus was political, religion should influence our politics, and we must Take Back Christianity.
Jesus Was Political
Jesus’ primary concern was creating the Reign[1] of God on Earth, which, while not an earthly kingdom, was all about politics. The Reign of God was a vision that Jesus had for the future in which peace ruled our hearts, justice reigned supreme, there was enough for everyone, and each person was seen as a child of God and afforded dignity and respect. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is asked when the Reign of God would arrive. He replied that you won’t be able to say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ “For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you” (Luke 17:21). There’s a parallel saying in the Gospel of Thomas that makes the point even clearer, “His disciples said to him, ‘When will the kingdom come?’ Jesus said, ‘It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying, ‘Here it is’ or ‘There it is.’ Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and people do not see it” (Thomas 113). In this version, Jesus makes it clear that the values of God are completely attainable if only we would open our eyes to the possibilities; we can’t just wait for it, we must make it happen.
Jesus was commonly given two titles, both of which had political implications: Son of Man and Son of God. Many Christians think that these titles are about Christology (Jesus being fully human and fully divine), but that interpretation is a result of the ecumenical councils of the 4th Century and not the theology of the texts when they were written in the 1st Century. While confessing Jesus as the Son of Man could mean that he was a mere human being, it was more often used at the time as a messianic title. When Jesus’ followers said that he was the Son of Man, they were saying that he was the Jewish Messiah. The Messiah wasn’t just supposed to be some nice guy who would shift the way that people thought about spirituality; he was supposed to be a warrior/king who would violently overthrow the powers that be (in this case, the Romans) and reestablish a unified kingdom of Israel, which he would then rule. Some of Jesus’ followers likely thought that’s exactly what he planned to do, not realizing at first that he wasn’t planning a coup but a nonviolent revolution of the heart in which ultimate loyalty was to God over human authority.
Similarly, “Son of God” was a political title that someone already held…the Roman Emperor. Caesar was said to be the Son of God, which is why Jesus asks whose head and whose title is on a denarius. It’s the Emperor’s head and his title as “Son of God.” Jesus asks people in this oft-misunderstood verse to choose their loyalty. Were they loyal to the Roman Emperor or to God? When Jesus’ followers confessed him as the Son of God, they were saying that they were loyal to Jesus and the Reign of God, not Caesar and Rome. It was political.[2] With people running around confessing Jesus as the messiah who was supposed to overthrow the Romans and ascribing to Jesus the title of Caesar, is it any wonder that Jesus was crucified by the Romans for insurrection?
On top of all of this, Matthew 25 makes clear what Jesus spends his entire ministry preaching: nations will be judged based on how well they’ve fed the hungry, provided for the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, and visited the incarcerated. Notice that it’s not just about interpersonal kindness; it’s about nations caring for those in need. Simply put, Christians can’t follow Jesus without being political. While we don’t live in the Roman Empire and might fancy ourselves to be antiimperialists, our votes have imperial implications because the United States acts as an empire.
Religion Should Influence Our Politics
Americans are rightly concerned about the Separation of Church and State, yet frequently misunderstand what it means. The concept is a product of the Enlightenment, but the phrase itself doesn’t appear in the Constitution. Instead, the exact wording was coined by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.[3] When we talk about the Separation of Church and State, we refer to the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”[4] We should note that these clauses have to do with how the government relates to us, not how we relate to the government. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from forming an official religion or favoring a particular tradition. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from controlling how we practice our religion. An important distinction is needed here between beliefs and values. A constitutional issue arises when we try to legislate belief. For instance, passing a law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools—centered around believing in a certain way—violates both clauses because it favors a certain tradition (the Judeo-Christian tradition) and may make others feel like their beliefs have to conform to that tradition, thus prohibiting their free exercise of religion. However, allowing our faith values to inform our positions on policies is not only required as Jesus-followers but also protected, not prohibited, by the First Amendment under the Free Exercise Clause. For example, if we believe that Jesus called us to welcome foreigners in our land, then we have a theological obligation to vote for immigration reform. Doing so does not legislate belief but enacts our values.
Another common misunderstanding is the Johnson Amendment, which has to do with the tax-exempt status of charities and religious organizations. The amendment, which can be found in the U.S. tax code, prohibits churches—or any 501(c)(3) organization—from endorsing political candidates or acting on behalf of a particular political party. It states that organizations operated exclusively for religious purposes should “not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”[5] This keeps political candidates/parties from funneling money into 501(c)(3)s to avoid taxes. Note, however, that this does not mean that churches cannot talk about politics, take positions on issues, or even discuss particular political candidates; it simply means that congregations cannot endorse particular political candidates. It also does not prohibit get-out-the-vote efforts or even voter education guides. This is why we have developed a guide called “Take Back Christianity.”
We Must Take Back Christianity
It’s never been more important to participate in the political process or to vote our values as Progressive Christians because the Religious Right has been effectively doing it for decades…and we’ve seen the results. That’s why we launched Take Back Christianity this year. We are seeking to change the narrative about key issues in the run-up to the November election and beyond. Take Back Christianity is intentionally non-partisan and is aimed at undecided Christian voters. At TakeBackChristianity.org, we have laid out the Christian response to key election issues, which include the following:
For each of these topics, we present the Christian view on the issue, how extremists have manipulated texts to fit their agenda, and how we can address the false narrative. Further, we want these resources to be used in faith communities and have created sermon starters for pastors to use in the run-up to the election and beyond. Take Back Christianity is a website that we hope becomes a movement.
If we care about the teachings of Jesus, we must get to work organizing so that Jesus’ message isn’t manipulated into hurting people in the 21st Century. The only way to counter the effective strategies implemented by the Religious Right is to change the narrative ourselves and to have our sights set beyond mere theology. The Christian faith necessarily has political implications, so let’s get to work creating the Reign of God right here. After all, the Reign of God is already spread throughout the earth; if only we will open our eyes to the possibilities. May it be so. Amen.
~ Rev. Dr. Caleb J. Lines
—————————-
[1] The Greek word basileia is often translated as “kingdom,” but modern scholars eschew the male language of “kingdom” and use “reign,” “realm,” or “kin-dom.” Basileia can also be translated as empire and carries political connotations.
[2]Marcus Borg, “Christians in an Age of Empire, Then and Now,” The Marcus Borg Foundation, May 17, 2008, https://marcusjborg.org/videos/christians-in-an-age-of-empire-then-and-now/.
[3] “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) – Library of Congress Information Bulletin”. www.loc.gov.
[4] Constitution of the United States of America, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/.
[5] 26 U.S. Code § 501 – Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc., see paragraph (3) of subsection (c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501.
Why do fundamentalists have a real fear of anything that smacks of socialism?
Dear Ted,
Socialism is one of those words bandied about today rather loosely. To you it means care for the marginalized. For members of the Tea Party in America, it seems to mean having the government control one’s life down to telling us when one must die. I do not believe that using loaded, easily misunderstood words is helpful to dialogue, so let me approach your question from a different angle.
I do not see any economic system devised by human beings that does more good for more people better than capitalism. Capitalism, however, devoid of social conscience that expresses itself in making sure that the wealth of the nation is not limited to a very small number of people at the top of the economic pyramid on one side and that no one falls through the safety net on the other, simply does not work. This means that I support things like a graduated income tax, Social Security, mandated universal health care and the regulation of institutions to guarantee fair and equal opportunity in wealth creation for all citizens. If capitalism is not tempered with these restrictions then I am convinced that the capitalist system will drive toward the revolution that Karl Marx predicted. So socially responsible and democratically established legislation is today necessary if capitalism is both going to endure and to be effective. This means that it is essential that capitalism develop the means to allow the wealth of this nation to be spread more equitably and thus allow capitalism to continue to be the best economic system yet devised by human beings.
We are in fact mandated by our faith to care for the poor, to feed the hungry and to tend the sick. We are also enjoined to love our neighbors as ourselves. I do not see how those ideals can be served if we allow capitalism to develop an underclass in which poverty is never escaped and in which the basic elements of a caring society do not exist. Christian history, which includes the development of capitalism, also reveals that we have not only violated these ideals, but we also have been anti-Semitic, anti -Muslim, anti-people of color, anti-women, and anti-homosexual. That is a strange way to follow Jesus’ command to love our neighbors.
What is going on in America at this moment is the political manipulation of basic human fears in order to gain power over others or to have power, which the ruling classes believe they have lost, restored. One manifestation of this is that the white Anglo-Saxon population that claims to be the “first families” of America is facing the fact that the United States now includes enormous numbers of citizens whose ancestors migrated not from Europe, but from Africa, Latin America and Asia. We are thus engaged in an internal struggle between the American spirit of inclusion and the vested interests of the earliest settlers. The anger in our political system today also reveals our latent racism, our greed and our xenophobia. When these fears are coupled with unstable economic forces that cause the future to feel insecure, the problems are compounded.
~ Bishop John Shelby Spong
January 19, 2011
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments