Aquadox: October 2009

January 29th two school officials held a luncheon prayer at a booster lunch. They were charged for violating a court order against "promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school sponsored events" (Hannigan, "jail time"). On the 17th of September, school officials from Pace High School in Florida were cleared of charges, because the prosecuting attorney failed to prove criminal intent (Hannigan, "Judge rules"). Although the judge remarked that America is not a theocracy, this is a dangerous ruling. With vigilant Christians constantly trying to unnecessarily burden teachers with creationism, we should be on guard against theocracy as much as ever. But why does God belong outside of government? Why should political concerns be secular? After all, shouldn't politicians uphold God's will? Wouldn't we all stand to benefit from God-fearing politics?

While God ought to guide politics, God should be kept out of politics. Our politics are our concern, not God's. But I don't think we are harmed by exposure to God, as many people think. The usual line of argument is that we should keep God out to respect the religions of others—so that we don't force one religion on everyone else. While I agree with this, I think too often this tack is made because people get offended when you defend God. But this isn't about that. God should be kept out of politics not because God desecrates us, but because because religious politics desecrate God.

Authority structures are temporal, plain and simple. Since they're temporal, authority structures have never been under the complete jurisdiction of God. Rather, they've been given to us to govern (by God, ironically). So when a politician claims that she is a servant exclusively of God, insofar as she is acting as a politician, she is making a false claim. She may be acting under God's advice, but her post is not a heavenly one. It is worldly. In fact, I propose a simple litmus test to check whether something is worldly: If a computer can predict it, it's probably worldly. Computers can and do predict public policy, at least according to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (with 90% accuracy), and so public policy is probably worldly. Obviously there are some problems with this approach—if a computer can't predict it, does that mean it isn't worldly? Probably not (though I'm not sure). But computers work based on things that are concretely defined. And, concretely defined things are worldly—this is what it means to be worldly. Public policy, too, works with things that are concretely defined: laws, incentives, petitions, vested interests, etc. So the business of public policy is the business of this world.

When people try to employ God in the business of the world, I think they get the roles mixed up. They try to make God conform to the authority of man, instead of the other way around. This is because they confuse what they want with what God wants. Setting public policy is about what you want done, as a man. When you speak to others, you speak as a man. Perhaps God inspires you, perhaps God guides you, but you do not in any way create or control God. Therefore the overzealous motivation to spread the gospel in public policy is wrongheaded. The best case scenario is that you are rejected as a fanatic. The worst case scenario is that you fetter any actual devotion to God, and instead people become devoted to you. I don't think selflessly spreading what you consider to be the truth is wrong, but I think you should live with the fact that you are actually getting nothing done. If anything good happens, it happens helplessly, because of God. We should watch out for people who pursue any kind of public policy, and we should ask, what authority do they have? Why are they making these decisions? What assumptions am I making about them? And most importantly, are my assumptions wrong?

It's not easy for anyone to check whether their assumptions are wrong. Sometimes the idea that you're wrong can be frightening. But if we can't find a way change our minds about public officials, even when they're wrong, how can we expect them to change their minds for us? Public officials are fallible, and are often wrong. This is why I think faith is so important—because we're so often wrong. We have to have faith that no matter how wrong we get, somehow we can manage to proceed on the spiritual path. If a man uses Christianity to guide his way, and that man is a public official, I see no problem. Perhaps that man has faith, and perhaps that faith will help him in difficult situations. But if that man creates difficult situations by trying to write laws with the authority of God, excluding all other possibilities, I see a problem. I see a man playing God. That is why we can't have a Christian nation: we have to ask, whose Christianity?

Writing laws with the authority of God places all of the responsibility on God. On the one hand, the man expects the law to be enforced—promoting his authority. But on the other hand, the man expects God to take responsibility for the law to be enforced, and/or he expects God to glorify him for making the law, and/or he expects to be protected in God's name from those who oppose the law, etc. This, again, conflates the authority of God and man. If man wrote the law, it is man's device, it carries the authority of man, and whatever happens because of the law happens because of man. If God were to come into the picture, it would be through man. But not because of man. That is, when man says, "This shall be done," it is man saying it perhaps because of God, but certainly not God saying it because of man. In fact, the responsibility for everything we say, do, and put into law, is ours. This is not a secular idea—it has support in the scriptures.

Speaking of the scriptures, the idea that God should be kept out of politics can be inferred from the New Testament. When the centurion approaches Jesus, he says he's not worthy for Jesus to come under his roof. (This occurs in Luke 7 and Matthew 8.) Why? Because he's a man of "authority"—all he wanted was for Him to heal his slave. What the centurion is doing is denying himself and his own authority, and adopting faith in Jesus. And Jesus affirms his faith, saying it's greater even than the faith He found in Israel. The centurion didn't want Jesus to come into his home because he didn't want to reduce Jesus to a celebrity endorsement. He knew that Jesus wasn't going to affirm his worldly authority, but rather affirm his faith, and in fact He does. We can infer from this story that Jesus' role is not to prop up powerful people, but rather support our faith.

Another piece of the New Testament confirms my suspicion about men trying to use God to their advantage. In Matthew 19 and elsewhere, Jesus discusses how difficult it is for men with great worldly possessions to enter heaven, saying that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The disciples are astonished, and ask who can possibly be saved, to which Jesus responds that with man it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. This makes me wonder, what exactly are evangelicals trying to do when they preach fire and brimstone? What are they trying to accomplish by propping up Republican politicians? Do they think they're saving people? It seems to me more likely that they're misguided. Perhaps even to the extent that they willfully ignore the meaning of the scripture to benefit themselves. This doesn't harm God, I submit. Desecrating God doesn't harm God at all. Desecrating God harms ourselves. The more God enters into politics, I argue, the further we get from God.

True, Moses was given the ability to evoke God, and give commandments. Jesus was given to do this as well. But are people like Bill O'Reilly really Moses or Jesus? Or, is it more likely that they are what they appear to be—bullies and thugs? I think these people desecrate the name of God by trying to inject God into politics. The irony is, God probably avoids politics. If He wanted to get involved in politics, Jesus probably would have been a king. I think politics are temporal, and it is perverse to use the Word for temporal gain. That would be rendering what is God's to Caesar.