Andrew wrote:
‘Beyond this problem, there is also the broader issue of church-state relations. The more a Christian group takes a “Constantinian” approach, believing that they have a mandate to Chrsitianize the state, the more they will see liberal activists as “them”.’
This is not a new topic, but one where I’d like to see what CoG‘s authors (and readers) think. As for me, my tendency is to be extremely suspicious of laws passed in any attempt to “Christianize” the state. This is not to say that Christians should not have a role in politics or that the church is somehow malevolent when it tries to influence the state. Rather, what I prefer is when a Christian group can make an appeal not solely to religion, but also to reason, common sense or research. In other words, things that can be scrutinized by everyone alike.
Since the New Testament makes no statements whatsoever concerning what types of government ought to be set up, every attempt to pass a law in the name of Christianity has to be considered the result of a fair degree of interpretation and even outright speculation.
But that’s just what I think…
I would prefer clarification on what “Christianization” is supposed to involve. If it involves ‘enforcing good behavior’ or ‘legislating morality’ then it ought to happen and does happen. If it involves passing laws because those laws can be supported Biblically, then that is also OK.
The only “Christianization” that I find wrong is when the state either enforces the decisions of the church (in matters of heresy, excommunication and the like) or the state attempts to enforce conversion (either with penalties or rewards).
Matthew,
What I think “Christianizing” applies to here, at least when I think about it, is when a legislative program is not otherwise defensible. In practical terms, I can be motivated as Christian to ensure that the state outlaws murder, but the case for this prohibition can be made intelligible to any citizen.
Does that make sense?
Dan:
There’s lots of different aspects to this issue.
One of the questions I ask about this is: “what would be reasonable for the average non-politician Christian to do?”
If she believes that God has revealed an ethical imperative to her (as interpreted by her reason, of course, but then every fact must be interpreted, revealed or not), why should she not vote in a way that is consistent with that revealed fact, even if most people do not agree that said fact is a fact at all? or even if there is no other evidence for that fact besides the divine revelation of it? In a Christian view of the world, divine revelation is more certain than any experience, empirical or psychological or sociological or otherwise. Obviously this gets more complicated when you ask, “What should be legislated on non-believers”, but setting aside that question I don’t see how we could criticize this non-politician if she votes/speaks out for strictly “Christian” reasons.
Then there is the question of strategy. There’s even debate amongst those of a Constantinian stripe as to whether it would be more effective to appeal to something like natural law rather than directly to Scripture. In this case its more of a prudential judgment; I happen to side with those who would rather appeal to Scripture, but not too strongly.
Finally there’s the issue of legislating. I think Matt’s right that there’s no alternative to legislating right and wrong; that’s the whole point of legislation. But whether any Christians should be involved in legislation (considered widely, including the law’s enforcement) raises the issue of violence and non-violence, and that’s a whole other can of worms.
Andrew,
I agree with you that it’s okay to be motivated to vote by Christian conviction. What I’m wary of is the imposition of a certain set of Christian beliefs on the population at large. Even as Christian, because I don’t necessarily agree with every other Christian.
An example: Some Christians (typically Roman Catholics) do not believe in birth control. I’m not particularly interested in raising 8 kids though, so I would vehemently oppose any prohibition in that direction.
Dan,
I think that virtually everyone agrees that not all moral commands can be legislated. Think about trying to legislate the 10th commandment, for instance. So even if Roman Catholics do believe that practicing birth control is wrong, that does not mean that they believe in legislating it. (They don’t.)
What else can be required except that all laws are discussed openly and the reasons for voting for them are given publicly. This would include all reasons peculiar to Christianity as well as those that (mostly) everyone shares. Transparency and honesty are of far more value in government than maintaining a wall between scripture and legislation.
I think that yes, Joe Catholic on the street would not favour such a thing, but there have been times when the RC church drove legislation of that nature in, say Ireland.