Christian Theology

1
DCM, Oxford, Mar. 2015 N. Townsend

• Christian Theology
• and Political Life
• Aim to distinguish the main questions addressed
  in the Christian tradition's discussion of
  politics,
• and to begin to address them with reference to
  biblical and theological sources.

2

• Structure
• Introduction (i) the obedience of rulers?
• (ii) context liberal society
• (ii) definitions
• A. Three normative political questions
• Why? What? How?
• B. Christian political participation in
  radically pluralist, liberal societies

3

• Three periods in Christian political history
• 30-313 Pre-Christendom
• 313 Edict of Milan tolerance of Christians
  after Constantine becomes Emperor
• 313-1791 Christendom
• 1791 First Amdt of the American Constitution
  there shall be no law respecting an
  establishment of religion.
• 1791-now Post-Christendom
• O. ODonovan suggests these symbolic dates
  (Desire of the Nations, p. 195)

4

• ODonovan takes Christendom to refer to,
• a historical idea that is to say, the idea of a
  professedly Christian secular political order,
  and the history of that idea in practice.
• Christendom is an era, an era in which the truth
  of Christianity was taken to be a truth of
  secular politics. (ibid., italics orig.)

5

• We are now in post-Christendom, liberal society
• What form should Christian political witness now
  take when our culture is no longer
  characterized by the idea of a professedly
  Christian secular political order, but by plural
  religious and philosophical convictions,
  discourses and communities?
• We shall address this in Part B.

6

• What is politics? As this term is generally
  used (e.g. in British public life), politics
  refers to
• determining what will be done for a whole,
  geographically-defined community by means of
  enforceable law
• together with all the activities directed
  towards that elections, lobbying, opposition,
  underhand scheming, and so on.

7

• Authority
• morally rightful holding/exercise of power
• Political authority
• morally rightful holding/exercise of power for a
  whole society,
• in other words, morally rightful determining of
  what will be done for a whole society

8

• Questions about political authority are
  normative about what should be done.
• That is, they are questions in normative
  political theory (à la John Rawls, Theory of
  Justice, etc).

9

• Three normative political questions
• 1. Why should people accept governments
• claim to authority at all? 
• The problem of political obligation
• 2. What should government do? 
• That is, what is the proper role of govt?
• 3. How should government be constituted? 
• That is, should the form of government be e.g.
  monarchical or democratic?

10

• How can Christians address these questions?
• 1. The Bible
• We can read both of two political strands within
  it
• The just government strand
• The prophetic strand
• (From Walter Brueggemann, Andrew Goddard see
  further N. Townsend, VPlater Mod A, 1.3 ) and Mod
  B, 2.2.)

11

• The just government strand
• - human rule as authorised by God
• OT The Torah
• The role of ancient Israels king
• Ps. 72, Prov. 16 10-15, 312-9 Isa. 11
• NT Jesus fulfils/transforms that royal role.
• God above Caesar, but Caesar has a role
• Mark 1213-17 Rom. 13 1 Pet. 2.
• Contemporary Oliver ODonovan

12

• The prophetic strand
• - God calls people to critique the very rulers
  whom God authorizes
• OT The Exodus
• Warnings about monarchy 1 Sam. 8 Kings
• The prophets Amos, Micah, Jer. 2111ff
• NT Jesus Luke 416f critique of Sanhedrin (et
  al)
• Paul life in Christ James Revn
• Contemporary liberation theology

13

• How can Christians address these questions?
• 2. The tradition(s) of Christian political
  thought
• Augustines pessimistic contrast the two cities
• arguably closer to the prophetic strand
• Aquinass more optimistic vision of government
  directing persons to virtue and the common good
  closer to the just government strand
• See ODonovan ODonovan (eds), Irenaeus to
  Grotius
• Witte Alexander (eds), 2 vols on modern RC and
  Protestant writers

14

• The two political strands in the Bible, plus
• the three normative political questions (why?
  what? how?)
• can give a structure within which to think
  clearly about Christian faith and politics.

15

• 1. Why should people, including Christians,
  accept governments claim to authority? 
• (a) Jesus message The reign of God is at hand
  for any holders of worldly power, a subversive
  slogan.
• But Jesus way of bringing in Gods reign
  repudiated all dependence on normal political
  means taking worldly power, coercive imposition,
  military force.
• Rather, his way was the cross as is his
  followers.
• Jesus was simultaneously political and
  anti-political.

16

• (b) Pauls teaching, esp. in Romans
• Chs 1-7 How Jesus life, death and resurrection
  are significant, for the Jewish people and all
  people
• Chaps 8-16 What that means for how those in
  Christ should live
• (incl. a passage, chs 9-11, on how the Jewish
  people fit into Gods purposes after Christs
  coming).
• In summary live according to the Spirit (85).

17

• From 121, Paul sets out what this means in
  practice in an astonishing series of
  exhortations.
• What the whole letter up to ch. 12 conveys is
  that, under the authority the Christ and the
  Lord, his followers are to live in a way that
  makes worldly structures of law and power
  superfluous.
• Their way of life is supposed to transcend these.

18

• But, at this very point, Paul suddenly gives
  attention to how the Christians in Rome should
  see the Roman authorities!
• They should recognize and be subject to the
  governing authorities / the powers that be
  (131).
• Why? Their authority comes from God - the same
  God who is made known through Christ and the
  Spirit.
• The powers who executed Christ are Gods
  servant for your good! (v. 5)

19

• Summary
• The few verses about the governing authorities
  in Rom. 13 are a brief aside in the letter
  overall. 
• Romans 12-13 can be seen as a relativization yet
  affirmation of human government.
• We should obey government because its authority
  is from God. But this is of secondary
  importance, relative to what God has done in
  Jesus and is doing by the Spirit.

20

• The other two normative qs can be seen as
  arising from this one
• If (1) God has authorised political authority,
  (2) what should it do, and (3) how should it be
  exercised?
• But can you think of another question that also
  arises, a fourth question?

21

• When? Is political authority pre- or post-Fall?
• Is it given in creation, or only as a remedy for
  some of the effects of sin?
• What do you think?
• The can be called the q. of the ontological
  status of government.

22

• Thought experiment
• In a human society without sin in the state
  of innocence (Aquinas) would there be
  government? That is, would some people exercise
  authority for society as a whole, hence over
  others?
• See further sheet to be supplied Does
  government have a directive as well as a
  remedial role?, and see www.virtualplater.org.u
  k, Mod. B, p. 3.3.3

23

• 2. What should government do?
• In summary justice the Bible witnesses to
  this in many places.
• To do justice to people is to recognise them for
  what they truly are, each alone and in community,
  and then to render to them what is due.
• But different visions of humanness mean
  different conceptions of justice.

24

• Ps. 72 a portrait of an ideal king
• O God, give your judgments mishpatim, pl. to
  the king
• your justice tzedakah to the kings son
• That he may govern your people with justice
  tzedakah,
• your oppressed with judgment mishpat.
• That the mountains may yield shalom for the
  people,
• and the hills great abundance,
• That he may defend the oppressed among the
  people,
• save the children of the poor and crush the
  oppressor.
• vv. 1-4 (NAB) cf. esp. vv. 12-14

25

• The mishpat, judgment, that the ideal king
  exercises is for the sake of those who
  are oppressed, poor or needy, or victims of
  violence (vv. 1-4, 12-14). 
• One commentator on Ps. 72 says this
• The only stated responsibility of the king in
  vv. 2-7 or vv. 12-14 is to establish justice for
  the oppressed, to save the needy  Such
  salvation was what God did in the exodus and
  this function is the measure of royalty, whether
  human or divine.
• J. Clinton McCann, Jr., The Book of Psalms, in
  L. Keck et al., eds, The New Interpreters Bible
  A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, Vol. IV
  (Abingdon, 1996), p. 963.

26

• Ps. 722-3 shows also this
• Through judgment (mishpat) in favour of the
  oppressed and poor, there will be not only
  justice (tzedakah) but shalom.
• Shalom wellbeing, shared welfare, peace with
  justice, peace and prosperity, the common good.
• The king has responsibility for shalom, but this
  comes through just judgment for the sake of the
  exploited and poor.  

27

• Numerous other references in the Hebrew
  Scriptures show that governments role is mishpat
  and tzedakah.
• E.g. Exod. 23 1-8 Num. 35 9-34, esp. 11
  Deut 1618-20, 17 8-11 1 Kings 3 Ps. 72 1-4
  Prov. 16 10-15, 31 4-9 Isa. 11 3-4 Amos 5
  1-24.
• Rom. 13 seems to presume too that a basic purpose
  of government is judgment in court.

28

• For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but
  to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the
  authority? Then do what is good, and you will
  receive its approval 4for it is Gods servant
  for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you
  should be afraid, for the authority does not bear
  the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to
  execute wrath punishment (NIV) retribution
  (NJB) on the wrongdoer. .5Therefore one must be
  subject, not only because of wrath but also
  because of conscience.
• Romans 13 3b-5, NRSV

29

• Tom Wright on this passage
• In Rom. 12, Paul has just said, strongly and
  repeatedly, that private vengeance is absolutely
  forbidden for Christians. But this doesnt mean
  on one hand, that God doesnt care about evil,
  or, on the other, that God wants society to
  collapse into a chaos where the bullies and the
  power-brokers do what they like and get away with
  it . . . That is almost all that Paul is saying
  in Rom. 13 4-7.
• Paul for Everyone Romans Part 2 (SPCK, 2004), p.
  85.

30

• Interlude The common good
• The human good is inherently or irreducibly
  common. It is analogous to the good of a concert,
  a football match or a great feast of celebration
  it can exist for anyone only as all participate
  in the shared action in which they produce and
  benefit from it simultaneously.
• It is participation in communion, ultimately
  with God.

31

• How has that biblical emphasis on government
  as judicial been developed in Christian history?
• We can distinguish at least three ways.

32

• (i) Government as directive to the common good,
  including by disciplining people through law to
  the end of their virtue
• This sees government as pre-Fall, given in
  creation.
• Government uses the force and fear of law to
  discipline people (Christian and not) in right
  conduct so that they are formed in good habits
  the virtues.
• Influenced by Aristotle the locus classicus is
  Aquinas early modern Calvinism (C16-C17) is
  similar the disciplinary society (Charles
  Taylor)

33

• (ii) The judicial role of government is made
  central/paradigmatic the ruler is most
  essentially a judge/magistrate.
• According to O. ODonovan, this reflects the
  long history of Christian political thought,
  going back to Augustine, more faithfully than
  Aquinass directive view.
• He labels this view government as judgment.
• This sees government as post-Fall, as of Gods
  providence for the fallen world. So government
  is reactive (OD).
• Given OT emphasis on rulers exercising mishpat
  (judgment), and, arguably, as similar emphasis in
  Rom 13.2-4 1 Pet 2.13, he advocates govt as
  judgment
• ODonovan sees this position as Augustinian.
• On this view, everything govt does is a response
  to wrongdoing remedial ODonovan speaks of
  the reactive principle

34

• (iii) Government as to establish/uphold
  conditions necessary for a supra-political good
  the common good including not least by
  upholding human rights.
• (a) Modern Catholic Social Teaching govt as
  maintaining the public order (John Courtney
  Murray) or the social conditions which allow
  people, either as groups or individuals, to reach
  their fulfilment (Gaudium et Spes)
• (b) Kuyperian neo-Calvinist govt as
  maintaining public justice among other social
  spheres
• In both, govts role has directive and remedial
  aspects.

35

• We need to be aware of a fourth position (but
  not one that can be seen as a development of the
  biblical emphasis on government as judicial)
• Government as alien to the gospel and not to be
  exercised by Christians neo-Anabaptist
  Hauerwass ecclesial ethics.
• Emphasises that the church community itself is a
  polis Gods city and therefore political.
  But nothing is said about what Christians should
  do as participants in secular public
  institutions.

36

• 3. How should government be constituted? 
• The q. of form of government
• Slides on this are included, though the session
  could not consider this question.
• Good form Bad form
• Rule by one Monarchy Tyranny
• by few Aristocracy Oligarchy
• by many Republican govt Democracy

37

• Jesus ministry and the early Churchs mission
  generated a contrast between the Christian
  community and earthly government. 
• The community that professed Christs supreme
  authority wasnt willing to see itself as under
  Romes authority alone even though Rome had a
  role. 
• This produced a new institutional duality  the
  contrast we now refer to as between Church and
  State.

38

• This duality is rooted in the OT in the
  experience of exile
• Seek the shalom of the city to which I have
  exiled you pray for it to the LORD, for in
  its shalom you will have shalom. (Jer. 297)
• The Jews in Babylon and the Christians in Rome
  were each a city of Gods people within another
  city.  The advice Jeremiah and Paul each gave
  was live with it! Augustine two cities. 

39

• That was at the end of the monarchy, the
  terrible risks of which Samuel had warned about
  at its beginning 1 Sam 8.
• I and II Kings portray the monarchy as failure.
• Hence the OT history paints a negative picture
  of monarchy.
• Yet in I Sam 8, God concedes to it, and works
  with it and an ideal of good kingship emerges.

40

• In Jesus kingship, three things happened at
  once
• The pre-monarchical ideal, in which God was
  directly the peoples king (1 Sam. 8), was
  restored.
• What became the monarchical ideal of an heir to
  Davids throne who would make real the vision of
  Ps. 72, Isa. 11, etc. was fulfilled.
• The post-monarchical model of two cities (Jer.
  29) was affirmed Jesus kingship is supreme but
  Caesars rule has a place under it. ?

41

• Then, after Christ has come, God gives the
  Spirit, the Spirit of the Christ, to all his
  people Acts 2.
• This offers to all renewal of true human living
  as those made in the image of God and granted
  dominion, authority, at the beginning.
• Here are seeds of democracy..

42

• While there are roots in Scripture for an
  assessment of forms of government, the Church was
  relatively indifferent among them, insisting
  instead that what matters much more is that
  government is just and for the common good.
• In other words the what question is more
  important than the how question.

43

• Reminder three normative political questions
• 1. Why should people accept governments claim
  to authority at all? 
• 2. What should government do? 
• That is, what is the proper role of govt?
• 3. How should government be constituted? 

44

• B. Christian political participation in
  radically
• pluralist, liberal societies
• Appeal to Christian faith in political debate?
• Not allowed, says neutralist liberalism.
• Most prominent defender John Rawls
• (In Political Liberalism, 1993, and Justice as
  Fairness A Restatement, 2001)

45
Christian participation in political life

• To see why not, consider the context of public
  speech
• Religious, philosophical and ethical
  plurality/diversity/disagreement
• Rawls refers to this as the fact of pluralism
• More accurately, his expression is The fact of
  reasonable pluralism. In a free society, people
  will reasonably disagree about religion,
  philosophy and ethics so reasonable pluralism
  is permanent, he says.

46
Christian participation in political life

• But if we disagree, how can we live together
  without conflict?
• More specifically, how can we talk together and
  decide in public if we have deeply different ways
  of understanding the world?

47
Christian participation in political life

• Two main answers
• 1. Translation into a neutral, secular, shared
  language
• - thin, neutralist liberal, John Rawls
• 2. Difficult conversation despite deep
  disagreements
• - thick, post-liberal, Jeffrey Stout, A.
  MacIntyre

48
Christian participation in political life

• 1. Translation into a neutral shared language
• Religious language needs to be excluded from
  public debate, because it cannot contribute to
  reaching agreement.
• So public discussion needs to be secularised.
• And Christian speech/practice is to be
  privatised.

49
Christian participation in political life

• Translation into a neutral shared language,
  contd
• Advocates of this secularist position
  generally hold that the only content of the
  shared language is do with individuals rights
• to be maximally free from external interference
  and
• to choose themselves how to live.
• Hence a thin language.

50
Christian participation in political life

• The most influential such position is Rawlss,
  who argued for two principles of justice. In
  his words
• Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a
  fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties
  such as speech, association, religion, which
  scheme is compatible with the same scheme of
  liberties for all
• Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy
  two conditions
• first, they are to be attached to offices and
  positions open to all under conditions of fair
  equality of opportunity and
• second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of
  the least-advantaged members of society (the
  difference principle).
• (Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, p.42)

51
Christian participation in political life

• Difficult conversation despite deep
  disagreements
• Advocates of this thicker version of public
  discourse
• hold that this is possible without conflict
• recognise that mutual understanding by those in
  different traditions can be very difficult.

52
Christian participation in political life

• Difficult conversation despite deep
  disagreements, contd
• Advocates of difficult conversation also
• hold that this is possible, thanks esp. to a
  vigorous democratic culture
• refer to such a culture as strong democracy or
  deliberative democracy. (Benjamin Barber)

53
Christian participation in political life

• To recap, two main alternative answers
• 1. Translation into a neutral shared language
• 2. Difficult conversation despite deep
  disagreements
• Luke Bretherton suggests a third alternative
  hospitality. Im not sure this is
  fundamentally different from 2.
• Luke Bretherton, Translation, Conversation or
  Hospitality, in N. Biggar and L. Hogan (eds),
  Religious Voices in Public Places (Oxford OUP,
  2009)

54

• Main problem with the translation approach
• Some of the main issues we need to decide in
  public require appeal to matters on which people
  disagree religiously/philosophically, e.g.
• the beginning and end of life
• human responsibility for non-human nature
• economic justice should income be distributed
  by individual contribution to profitability or by
  participation in generating a common good?
• whether its better generally for children to be
  raised by their own two biological parents than
  others
• what marriage is

55

• If that is so, public discussion on such matters
  cannot take place in a neutral shared language
  as this would not engage with the reasons why
  people disagree.
• So there is no option but answer 2 difficult
  conversation despite deep disagreements.
• This is what Christians who participate in
  public debate have to contribute to.

56
Christian participation in political life

• Summary
• Public discussion in our day is deeply divided.
• So can we use a neutral language?
• No, because many contentious issues turn on deep
  differences that no neutral language can
  articulate.
• So in public life and witness, Christians and the
  churches have to participate in a difficult
  conversation.

57

• Whether people are Christians or
• hedonist neoliberals
• voluntarist social liberals
• Burkean conservatives
• ethical socialists, etc, etc, etc (see Map)
• they have no option but to come to public debate
  willing to articulate how their comprehensive
  conception of the human good supports what they
  advocate should be done by political authority.

58
Christian participation in public life

• It is democratic procedures which enable us, to
  the extent that we do, to live together
  politically despite the extent of the radical
  plurality among us.

59

• Christian Theology
• and Political Life
• Introduction the obedience of rulers?
• context liberal society
• A. Three normative political questions
• Why? What? How?
• Plus the q. of the ontological status of govt
• B. Christian political participation in
  radically pluralist societies