Disclaimer: This is a much longer post than what is
typical and resulted in a larger time gap between posts.
For those who know me well, you know my interests are pulled
in a thousand directions. I am deeply committed to my Christian faith, I have
worked in government and politics (despite my paradoxical disdain for politics),
I am an academic (despite my lack of trust in academic work), and I am a
musician. However, God in his coolness and sovereignty, has provided me with
the perfect job to fit almost all of my interests as CEO of Transforming Jail
Ministries.
In this post, I really want to focus on this intersection of
government and religion. It is an important relationship to understand and
equally important in order that churches are prepared for future changes. After
all, like the Apostle Paul, we are citizens of two kingdoms: the geo-political
state we belong to and the Kingdom of God.
Identity Tug of War
Let me begin with this. I totally agree with Francis
Schaeffer (and others) who have emphasized the notion that there is no “sacred
secular divide.” Meaning, we cannot live as Christians separately from being
citizens (or any other social circles we may be a part of). In fact, there is
no such thing as a sacred and secular divide in the sense of there being two
realms. Everything is sacred.
To put this differently, for the Christian, our identity is
first in Christ. That is not to say that we must disavow ourselves of other
identities. It would be impossible to do so.
W. E. B. du Bois’ “The Souls of Black Folk” spoke about
living behind two veils. One was the veil of being a freed man in the United
States with the second of being a black man in the United States. While I do
not wish to hijack or diminish the horrible consequences of racism and slavery
experienced by black Americans, I do think there is something here for the
Christian to consider as well.
We too live behind two veils, and like du Bois, we must
figure out a way to navigate our way through life on this side of eternity. It
is the struggle between Augustine’s Kingdom of Man and Kingdom of God. John
Bunyan also utilized this theme in The
Pilgrim’s Progress.
Here are some biblical references on dual citizenship:
-
Paul cites dual citizenship as a follower of
Christ and a Roman citizen (Acts 21:39)
-
Acts describes Paul as a Roman citizen (Acts
16:37-8)
-
Paul says he was born a citizen (Acts 22:25-8)
-
Paul appeals to Caesar as a citizen (Acts 25)
Dual Citizenship
There is, however, a major difference between the Kingdom of
God and Kingdom of Man. We cannot confuse those two and must not blur the lines
between them. To quote my ethics professor from seminary (Russell Moore), “We
can be Americans best if we are not Americans first.”
If you’re a die-hard patriotic nationalist, then those words
are probably offensive. Here’s Moore’s point. The Gospel of Christ is much
greater than Manifest Destiny or American Exceptionalism. Manifest Destiny was
a sham all along and Americans have never been exceptional. Nations rise and
fall and we too will one day die. And on that day, we will no longer be
Americans.
To think of being American (ethnically) as being greater
than being Mexican, Libyan, Chinese, Russian, Syrian, Iraqi, Korean,
Vietnamese, Japanese, German, Somalian, Kenyan, Zambian, Peruvian, Portuguese,
or any other nationality is entirely racist and anti-Gospel. It flies in the
face of God’s word when he tells us that we are all made in his image. Equality
is global in scope.
What are we to say to our brothers and sisters abroad? Are
they only semi-Christian? Is American citizenship a sort of salvific baptism
into the Kingdom of God? Absolutely not!
I do not say this to claim that the United States of America
isn’t a great nation. It is. There’s no other nation in which I’d prefer to
live. I’m not anti-American in heart, mind, or deed.
But, if we confuse our nationality with our faith, we will exacerbate
the kind of civil religion where our nation is to be the defender and substance
of our faith.
Likewise, if we believe being Christian requires belonging
to one political party over others, then we have confused our identity in Christ
with partisanship. There’s not a major political party or third party in the
U.S. which sufficiently and exhaustively reflects Christian beliefs. Given that
we have Christian liberty in government policy, it would be impossible for such
a party to exist. Were it to be possible, it would likely be unwise.
The Financial Future
of Religious Institutions
Early in U.S. history, Baptists and Presbyterians fought for
separation of church and state. They were wise in doing so and we’d be wise to follow
in their footsteps. However, the framers of our Constitution did not all agree
as to what separation would look like. The U.S. Constitution never uses the
language of “separation of church and state.” The Establishment Clause simply
restricts government from being able to recognize, or “respect,” religion (a
Madisonian approach).
In my opinion, the Madisonian approach is the right one. It
is inconvenient for everyone, but benefits no one above others. A Madisonian
non-cognizance approach simply means that government can make no decision that
recognizes religion as a factor. It is also the most commonly used approach by
the Supreme Court.
In the case of the Ark Encounter controversy in Kentucky, it
meant that the state of Kentucky could not withhold tourism tax credits on the
grounds of Ark Encounter being a religious entity. It also means that the state
cannot withhold funds from an atheist or Muslim equivalent, whatever that might
be. The tax credits must be available for all who meet the necessary
requirements, regardless of religion or lack thereof, because government cannot
allow religion or the lack thereof to be a factor in an assessment.
In order to best preserve our individual religious
liberties, we must therefore protect religious liberties for persons of all
faiths and those who lack religious identity altogether.
There will be a day, however, when religious organizations
will lose tax credits and benefits. Christianity is being viewed more and more
as antithetical to contemporary ethics. What will we do when that day arrives?
I suggest that we should be prepared well in advance to give
up our tax credits and benefits in order to maintain our theology. Churches are
generally registered as 501(c)3 organizations. In the language of law, we are
tax exempt organizations. As of now—according to a Madisonian understanding of
the U.S. Constitution—we are able to be tax exempt because churches and
religious organizations are not for profit (most of us anyway).
When our theology is no longer tolerated, either we will
lose our exemptions or we will lose our doctrinal distinctives. Read this as
both a warning and exhortation to be financially prepared for the day when we
will lose our tax-exempt status if we fail to comply with court rulings and
legislation. That time is not far.
Render to Caesar What
is Caesar’s
This final section is wholly dependent on a specific biblical
interpretation and political philosophy. The first part is to believe that the
words of Jesus apply to all people at all times. That means when Jesus says to “render
to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Mk. 12:17), then we are expected to do so. In
other words, pay your taxes and uphold your obligation as a citizen.
Secondly, we must have a half-decent understanding of the
social contract. Political theorists and philosophers have discussed the social
contract for some time. The social contract is assumed at birth. You don’t get
a choice. In the U.S., it means that we are born within the geo-political
boundaries of a government we must obey. Simultaneously, we have certain civil
liberties and freedoms our government is expected to protect. If we do not obey,
there are consequences that include fines, incarceration, and possibly death.
If the government does not uphold its obligations, we have a judicial process
through which we can take action.
There are gray areas however, where this relationship is not
so clear.
Transforming Jail Ministries (the organization I serve)
operates within government facilities and receives some local government
funding for the services we provide. In turn, we manage the process of credentialing
chaplains for all faiths in order to accommodate inmates of all faiths.
Some Christians will find this controversial and difficult
to reconcile with gospel ministry. I did at first, but it is important to
distinguish between credentialing and endorsing. While we are the buffer
between government and religious groups—as the credentialing agency—we never
endorse any chaplain or religious group. Therefore, we are able to continue our
gospel ministry and provide services for the Hamilton County Sheriff’s
Department (Cincinnati for those who do not live here).
If there comes a day when we are expected to “endorse” all
theologies, that will be the day I step down.
It is also crucial that I maintain proper boundaries between
my organization’s operations and that of the Sheriff’s Department. In heeding
my own words, I am working towards funding levels where my organization is not
wholly dependent on donations from the Sheriff’s Department in order to continue
our operations. Should there be a day when we are expected to operate in a way
that violates our Christian distinctives or else lose funding, then I will opt
to forgo our government funding whatever the consequences may be.
Concluding Remarks
I want to thank those of you who have trudged through this
exceptionally long post. I do not wish to be offensive with this post, though I
am sure some will take it as anti-American. That is not my goal. I have a long
history of working within government for the purpose of making my communities,
state, and nation a better place. I love the country in which I live. Despite
our warts and historic moral failings, I believe an overwhelming majority wish
to continue working toward the goal of making the U.S. a better place.
For those of you who are in ministry, I hope you have found
this helpful. It is essentially an outline of a lot of research and study I
have done over the past several years as a seminary student, a student of
political science, and a political activist.
No comments:
Post a Comment