Lesson 13: Christianity in a Constitutional Democracy
As I said last week, one of the questions that emerged when looking at the presidential election through the eyes of Jesus’ teachings had to do with the role of the church in a constitutional democracy. Is an election an opportunity to enact Christian values into civil law? Put another way: Is an election a chance to impose Christian values on a society? Put another way: Is an election an opportunity for evangelism? Or even put another way: Does an election decide where the churches should stand on controversial issues?
Obviously each question demands further discussion. However, in the past my answer to all of them would’ve been a resounding “no”, and I would’ve assumed that most Christians agreed with me.
That assumption was shattered in the recent election campaign. One side felt called by God to save the nation from a secularism they perceived as attacking Christianity. In reaction, the other side felt they needed to defend developments they thought were led by God. Each ended up vehemently condemning the other.
One answer that kept coming up suggested that we can no longer assume a partnership between democracy and Christianity. Throughout the campaign there were proposals that perhaps an authoritarian (surprisingly never described as a benevolent dictator) might be what our society needs right now.
A second answer is that this is simply evidence of a crisis in Christianity that has nothing to do with democracy at all. It indicates a need for reformation that returns to Jesus’ teachings in hopes of uniting more of the church.
A third answer is that this reflects a conflict that has developed between church and state which challenges our past working arrangement. That opens up a further question that asks whether this is a Bonhoeffer moment or a Martin Luther King/ Desmond Tutu moment.
If it is the former, the church is facing a struggle between good and evil that demands she must prepare herself to resist and perhaps remove the offender.
If it is the latter, polarization might be the main problem and the reconciliation of the parties might be possible. The church should then be preparing herself as a space where conversation that fosters transformation can take place. Learning to love our enemies might bring trust and peace.
The compatible but tenuous relationship of church and state in America has always worked because it was mutually beneficial. The government allowed pastors to be agents of the state in marriage, declared them exempt from military services, and granted churches tax exemption. In return, Christians pretty much abandoned their prophetic role as they became spiritual supporters of the government in power. Pastors prayed before meetings and churches flew American flags.
That working relationship might be threatened as the churches are forced to ask what Christianity regards the role of government to be. I’ll end this series next week by looking at this.