Political Engagement as Biblical Mandate. Paul D. Hanson
Читать онлайн книгу.
in the effort to be obedient and productive children of God.18
How does that obedience and productivity translate into citizenship? How can Christians enrich discussions in the public square by drawing on the riches of their scriptural tradition while still being respectful of the broad diversity of religious and moral perspectives within their society?
People of faith can view their civic involvement as an aspect of participating in the unfolding epic of God’s ongoing creation dedicated to the restoration to health of an order in which creatures large and small have been fractured and alienated from one another and in which even the inanimate world has been degraded. As free citizens of God’s reign of restorative justice and all-inclusive compassion, Christians are commissioned to be ambassadors of the New Creation through which God seeks to restore the entire cosmos to wholeness (2 Corinthians 5:16–21 and Romans 8:18–39). Though they view participation in government as an important part of their discipleship, their mode of engagement differs from zealots seeking to impose their theocratic visions on a godless order. Precisely because they regard all human institutions as imperfect and provisional and recognize the wisdom of those adhering to different views of the world, they accept the debate and compromise involved in policy-making as a natural part of laboring for the healing of the present order even as they yearn for the permanent and perfect peace that only God can inaugurate.
In our political engagement, we are deployed not with a timeless blueprint in hand, but with the example of ancestors in the faith who responded to the call to covenant partnership in an ever-changing world. Inspired by Abraham, we dare to move beyond comfortable boundaries, with Moses we dare speak God’s word of truth to tyrannical power, and like Amos we embrace as our strategy doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with our God (Amos 6:8). Reformed theologian Paul Lehman contrasted the absolutist political philosophy of fundamentalism with the legacy of the Reformation, which legacy, in his words, introduced “a liberating grasp of the ways of God with men and thus also the possibility of ever fresh and experimental responses to the dynamics and the humanizing character of the divine activity in the world. This meant for ethics the displacement of the prescriptive and absolute formulation of its claims by the contextual understanding of what God is doing in the world to make and to keep human life human.”19
Application of this dynamic understanding of God’s redemptive presence in the world to political process leads to this conclusion: The specific form that the branches of a particular government should take is to arise from the diligent search of the citizenry for the structures most suitable for upholding mercy and justice within the concreteness of its global setting and its temporal location within an every changing and challenging world. This conclusion derives from a central tenet of the Christian faith, namely, that human governments are legitimate only to the extent that they serve the purposes of even-handed justice, provision for the needs of the poor and infirm, and global peace. It is solely from the promotion of these purposes that human institutions derive their authority to rule.
From this understanding the church derives these principles regarding its responsibility vis-à-vis society and government:
1. The perspective from which social and political issues will be viewed is its carefully delineated vision of God’s universal reign.
2. The responsibility of the church to government will take the form of representation of and advocacy for God’s Reign.
3. Its mode of action will include, as appropriate, critique, admonition, and support, uncompromised by penultimate claims such as patriotism and ecclesiastical loyalty, but respectful of the constitutional principles of a legitimately constituted host state.
Even after these principles are clear, an important practical question remains: With sensitivity to its particular location in time and place, how does a given community of faith go about the task of enriching political process with the specific wisdom and insight into truth derived from its own tradition while remaining respectful of participants from other religious and philosophical perspectives? What form of discourse will be faithful, legal, fair, and effective, given the wide diversity of religious and nonreligious perspectives present in a pluralistic society? A lively debate rages over this question, with three major alternatives being offered by scholars variously trained in philosophy, political science, and theology. The three alternatives are these:
1. Political liberalism: John Rawls has proposed that public discourse in a modern, religiously diverse society must be confined to arguments comprehensible to all participants, thus excluding appeal to comprehensive worldviews, such as religion, for warrants that will make sense only to adherents.20 He later modified this by conceding that religious warrants could be admitted into public discussion, but they carried no weight if not backed up with rational justifications, a modification emotively significant but without philosophical substance. 21 Richard Rorty argues along similar lines, except that his reason is more pragmatically than philosophically based, namely, the introduction of religious language in political discussions amounts to a “conversation stopper.”22
2. Communitarianism. Stanley Hauerwas, drawing on Alasdair MacIntyre,23 argues that political liberalism has impoverished public moral discourse by depriving it of the depth dimension of faith, that is, the dimension that provides people and movements with moral motivation and specific ethical content. The attempt to find a neutral language not only reduces public debate to drabness but privileges rationalism over other alternatives.24
3. Pragmatism. Jeffrey Stout suggests that public discourse should be pragmatically goal-oriented, with all perspectives—religious and nonreligious—welcomed, granted that they abide by the rules of civility and remain focused on and mutually committed to the qualities that constitute a good society.25
In the efforts of the church to translate biblical truth into political process, the above three alternatives will challenge thought and provide important insights. In the final analysis, however, a theo-political hermeneutic is required that is simultaneously true to Christian beliefs and moral principles and suitable for the political settings within which we live. Rather than choosing between political liberalism, communitarianism, and pragmatism, such a hermeneutic can draw judiciously from all three in the process of forging a strategy that strikes the delicate balance between confessional integrity and civility.
A Five-Step Hermeneutic for a Biblical Based Political Theology
We have offered examples of the dangers inherent in an undisciplined application of biblical verses, motifs, and themes to contemporary domestic and international issues. We also have given an overview of the political models that arose over the course of biblical history by means of which our spiritual ancestors sought to relate their faith to the political, economic, and social realities within which they lived. The picture that emerged was not of a static blueprint for relating religion to politics, but rather a dynamic one characterized by adaptability to ever changing circumstances, both within the nation and in neighboring empires often led by imperious rulers. The nature of the biblical sources themselves thus deprives us of the simple exercise of consulting an authoritative manual for answers to all problems. Not timeless answers, but testimony to a living God involved with his creation and the people responding to his call to partnership on behalf of fullness of life for all, such is the authority to which we have fallen heir.
The hermeneutic that grows out of this understanding of the Bible will take the form of a process rather than a mechanical deductive exercise, a process conducted not by an elite cadre of experts but by a faith community embracing people from all lands and from all social and economic classes and races, a community moreover that works cooperatively with justice-loving members of all other communities. The following brief description of a five step hermeneutic will offer a glimpse into my understanding of the interpretive process in which a faith community engages as it turns to the Bible for guidance from the perspective of the Christian faith and within the context of a society characterized by broad religious and philosophical diversity and a history of a lively legal and legislative debate over the issue of the proper relationship between church and state.
First, if we believe that the cornerstone of a Christian political theology is the distinction between God’s ultimate authority and the derived, penultimate authority of every human institution, we must abide in a living relationship with that