City in a Hill:

The Ideology of Evangelicalism
                 &
Remedies for Renewal

Jeremy Lindgren

Preface

            This essay was born largely of two things: the first was a semester spent communing, reforming, and learning in
Washington, D.C. with an incredible group of Christian brothers and sisters who I have the distinct privilege of calling friends.  Much of what I propose in this paper is a product of the many conversations I had during that time as well as the research I did both by force and by choice.  I am indebted to many of my friends from Washington, along with the numerous people from Gordon, Eastern,
Greenville, and elsewhere: the contributions of which have deepened my perspectives, my faith, and my love for God and the church, and each one of them individually.  This paper is surely just as much theirs as it is mine. 

            The second event this essay was born out of was a comment made in one of my senior seminar classes this past January.  Somehow we got onto a discussion of the relevance of the church in American culture, both politically and socially.  It did not take long for us to reach the conclusion that the church does not have much.  It also did not take long, however, for several of us to reach the conclusion that the church is beyond redemption in the eyes of the public square; that the image, and even doctrine, of the church has become so tarnished that it could never regain any serious cultural (and consequently political and social) relevance or authority. 

            This essay stands as an authoritative “never” to that sentiment. 

A special thanks to my editor, Laura, without whom this essay would have ever been finished.

Introduction

             The

Evangelical
Church[1] is a bit sick these days.  The sickness is first seen in two post-evangelical phenomena: the emigration of many evangelicals to more orthodox faith traditions[2], and the birth of what is coming to be known as the emerging church movement.  Both point, often explicitly, to a marked displeasure, dissatisfaction, and at times even disgust, for the evangelical church as it stands today.  Often accused of being theocratic, belligerent, hypocritical, Gnostic, legalistic, and separatist, evangelicals, and especially those associated with fundamentalism and the religious right, have come under heavy fire from academics, politicians, the media, and even their own insiders.  Equally as insidious, and just as equally what movements like the emerging church are rebelling against, is a pervasive ethos of social, political, and cultural apathy that largely leads to what one pastor friend of mine coined, ‘functional atheism,’ or, alternatively [they have become] ‘of the world but not in it.’

            Of course sickness does not come from nowhere.  When one contracts the common cold, it did not just appear out of thin air.  There are likely a host of reasons that have contributed to ones’ being sick.  Such is true with evangelicalism as well.  In the case of the church, and I will use evangelical(ism) and the church interchangeably throughout, the sickness does not come from a biological virus.  No, the church becomes sick when its members, in both their individual and corporate capacities, have become infected with inappropriate and flat out incorrect, ideas, concepts, and theologies—essentially, worldviews. 

            Everyone, no matter who they are, has some sort of worldview. Even if one lives in a cave and can count the number of times they’ve left it in the past decade on their toes, they have some sort of worldview that provides them with the lens through which they view their neighborhood, their city, their country, their world, their best friend and their worst enemy. A worldview is ones’ holistic take on life, the universe and everything—it is what gives meaning to their lives, orders their authority, and centers their epistemology, ontology, and teleology.  Corporate, and by corporate I mean community and institutional, worldviews most certainly exist as well, and evangelicalism surely has one.  The problem with the evangelical worldview is that it is here where we find the root cause of the evangelical sickness; the evangelical worldview is infected with ideology.

            This is seen through the actualization of three ideologies in evangelical theology and discourse: individualism, conservatism, and nationalism.  Not surprisingly, the deep entanglement between the aforementioned ideologies and theology (written or otherwise) leads to serious epistemological, ontological, and eschatological problems. These have often fostered the unique evangelical brand of social, cultural, and political engagement typically seen in their separatist tendencies and occasionally Gnostic approach to, well, life, the universe, and everything.

            The content and goal of this essay is not at all limited to leveling the charge.  The indictment against evangelicalism is easy to bring, the sickness is easily apparent.  However, no good doctor would ever tell her patient that he was very sick and then shrug her shoulders in defeat.  That is no doctor.  Consequently, this essay is not going to merely examine what about the church is infected, and why it is dangerous (Part I), but also what it needs to change and how it ought to look when it has renewed its health (Part II). Finally, a good doctor would be doing a great disservice to a patient if she never actually prescribed a way to renew ones’self from sickness to health.  As such, we will also (Part III) examine practical steps to move the church from sickness to health: from where we are to where we ought to be, focusing primarily on political ramifications.

Part I: The Evangelical Ideological Affair

Introduction

             The problem with ideologies is that they manage to, intentionally or not, misplace part of God’s Creation, exaggerating, even deifying, that part at the expense of the rest.[3]  All three of the aforementioned ideologies (individualism, conservatism, and nationalism) to which evangelicalism has doctrinally and/or theologically codified or otherwise bought into (if not in word, then in practice), arguably stem from an increasing embrace of liberalism.  A direct study of liberalism is beyond the scope of this essay, however, it is obvious that individualism is a direct consequence of the liberal creed.[4]  Conservatism and nationalism have deep ties to individualistic modes of thinking and action, albeit, the ties are less direct than with individualism.  The goal of Part I is to examine and critique the existence of each of these ideologies in evangelical thought, theology, and action.  We will begin by looking at the fourfold affects of individualism, followed by the roots, causes, and interconnectedness of conservatism and separatism.  Third we will examine the roots, causes, and problems with American Christian nationalism, and then finish with some concluding remarks.

Individualism; Authority turned Autonomy.

            Quite possibly the biggest problem in evangelicalism today, the greatest measure of its own sickness, is the deep-seated connections between evangelical theology and the ideology of individualism.  Though this does not manifest itself in explicit doctrinal statements of written Christian individualism, evangelical theology quickly reveals itself to be incredibly individualistic, whether intentionally or not.[5]

            To be blunt, evangelical theology has centered the primary focus of the Gospel on, predictably, the individual—hence the connection to individualism.  This is evidenced most easily in the continual and often solitary emphasis on a “Jesus and me” relational construct between God and man that purports a theology that is essentially centered on the terms “me” and “I,” respectively.  This theological individualism creates four problems:[6] One, it uproots the Biblical understanding of authority and, consequently, mitigates or even abrogates true and meaningful accountability; Two, it misrepresents the Biblical account of the human person; Three, it creates an individualized, Platonic-like evangelism; and Four, it encourages and fosters dualism.

            To begin with, the focus on the “Jesus and me” relational construct, while beneficial within its appropriate limits,[7] is prone to creating a one-dimensional understanding of relational authority.[8]  Though authority is rightly seen as being solely deriving from Christ,[9]  individualism enters the scene when Christ is determined as the only source of authority and oneself as the only legitimate interpreter of this authority: the final epistemological authority of good and evil, right and wrong.  To some extent it could be argued that this is Christian contractarianism but yet not.  The adherent agrees to fall under the authority of Christ, but then himself determines the terms of the contract—they have their cake and eat it too.  He is only under the authority of anything so long as it fits with his interpretation of the terms of contract. This can be seen in comments ranging from “I broke up with you because Jesus told me to” all the way to Pat Robertson’s yearly prophecy extravaganza predicting everything from nuclear explosions, to massive hurricanes, to Republican political victories for the coming year.

            This obviously has a few implications for such individuals.  Speaking of Pat Robertson, he managed, between August of 2005 and January of 2006, to call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez,[10] to pass judgment on
Dover Pennsylvania,[11] and to suggest that a stroke suffered by Israeli PM Ariel Sharon was God’s retribution for several pro-Palestinian decisions.[12]  Though such actions are considered extreme even by fundamentalist standards, [13] Robertson stands as an unfortunately good example of the problem of individualism in theology.  Our question is, what could prevent Robertson from making such extreme statements publicly?  The answer is nothing, and here is why:  Accountability can only be accepted from a source of authority.  If the only recognized authority in ones’ life is Jesus, there can be no true accountability: why would one run their thoughts by someone else before speaking if they know they are correct?   Furthermore, if authority is understood as being solely one-dimensional, then whatever one interprets from that authority must be correct.  Consequently, whatever the authority “imparts” to you, is infallible.  Personal interpretation of the written Word, prophetic visions, divine inspiration, it is all whatever the individual makes it out to be.  And, of course, they are hardly ever wrong: Jesus told them so, and you cannot argue with Jesus.  Authority becomes a license for autonomy.[14]  This abuses the authority of Christ because it turns His authority into a personal tool to support whatever it is that the individual is looking to claim.

            The authority/accountability complex is equally evident in institutions as it is in individuals.  We have already taken a brief look at the problems with individuals using the rather extreme example of Pat Robertson.  However, the problem is also particularly evident in the phenomena known as non-denominational churches as well as in some Baptist denominations.  When a pastor, or even a board of deacons, manages to come down with a case of individual ideology and therefore has an absolutist and infallible perspective on Scripture, he manages to take the whole congregation with him.  The chain of authority is now a bit broader, but is still separate from outside accountability.  Once the congregation accepts the authority of the pastor (and they may decide not to),[15] they accept too his interpretation of scripture insofar as he is their epistemological and ontological authority on all things true.[16]

            The authority issue also creates serious complications in the area of hermeneutics.  Authority, while coming solely from Christ, is often, as well, derived heavily from the written Word.  Some evangelicals, especially those associated with the religious right and fundamentalism, cling heavily to sola scriptura and often take the Bible (and, more importantly, their interpretation of it) as another form of absolute authority at the expense of every other source of authority.[17]  Truth is found by rejecting the authority of the (greater) church, world, ecclesial tradition, and reason, mostly because institutions and other individuals (read, other sources of authority and accountability) can run the risk of tampering with ones interpretation of the otherwise infallible Scriptures.[18] What is often tangibly portrayed, both in public and private, is an insistence on the infallibility of Scripture, its ability to speak to literally every moral subject conceivable, and the means to interpret all of it correctly all of the time.[19]

            Our second problem, already alluded to and stemming from the one-dimensional authority construct, is that it becomes easy to view oneself as the only person to whom God speaks truth.  This degrades the ontological status of the human person, reducing persons to mere individuals.  It neglects the real truth that, first, God speaks to multiple persons, even ones with whom one may radically disagree and, secondly, that individuals are not individuals, but persons, and consequently are relational beings.[20]

            If one perceives herself as being the sole interpreter and receiver of truth, one has managed to shut out the possibility that others may have it, even if only in part.[21]  This is why accountability is so difficult: what is the use of asking for accountability when you are always right because God told you Himself, this morning, over coffee?  What is the point of consulting others and taking their advice seriously?  Such a perspective limits ones’ perspective of what Christ can be and He is doing in the lives of others as well as in our own lives.[22]  Humanity is relational for a reason; we actually need each other in order to flourish physically, emotionally, and spiritually—individualism fails to account for this truth, it fails to account for meaningful community beyond a collection of like-minded individuals.[23]  Without meaningful account of relationships and community, individualism allows for no meaningful responsibility.

            Limit the doctrine of the human person to the individual, add in a one-dimensional authority turned autonomy structure and stir to get the perfect license for a Gnostic pietism.  Though, admittedly, pietism flowers just as much out of a faulty conception of sin as it does in the individualistic authority construct (and in Gnosticism even more so), the believer can easily become so intensely focused on the purity of self that the quest for self-purification partially or even completely obscures others outside of one’s immediate sphere of influence.[24]  Again, this ignores the fundamental conception of the human person, in deference to a doctrine espousing the autonomy of the human individual.

            Third, when primacy is doled out to the individual, and the relationship between man and God is viewed as primarily one-dimensional (the emphasis on Jesus and me), it follows logically that evangelicals seek to convert people in a similar manner.[25]  It is crucial to note that this stripe of evangelism is not inherently bad; the problem arises when it become the only sort of evangelism.  To word it another way, we encounter problems when evangelism is defined by, and carried out as, the pursuit of individual souls by individual Christians.  It runs the risk of becoming number-counting, each soul another tick-mark on one’s belt that invites merely a horizontal movement of people from one temporal community to another instead of inviting them into a genuine relationship with their Creator and His created.[26] This becomes compounded and takes the shape that I am lamenting when combined with separatism.  The evangelical model of evangelism begins to look akin to Plato’s cave analogy in which the philosopher (here the evangelical) goes back into the cave to rescue people for the purpose of rescuing them from the cave.  Though this is indeed good in itself, Plato does not hold out any hope for the cave:  the cave is beyond redemption and is not worth redeeming in and of itself.  Plato would completely ignore the cave if it were not for his feelings of obligation to pulling people out of it.[27]  If I may make the connection, a Platonic-like, belt-mark evangelism is dangerous. 

            Additionally, in regard to evangelism, a strictly individual approach eclipses the ability of evangelicals to engage institutions.  This sort of evangelism, combined with the tendency to overemphasize and simplify the root of societal ills (such as racism or economic disparities between classes) as primarily individual problems, creates problems as it will often fail to see how sin becomes rooted and even codified in societal power structures from the economy to the church to the state.  This is, of course, only a half truth, so allow me to explain better what I mean.  Fundamental and conservative evangelicals have been bemoaning the condition of our society since not long after the inception of our nation.  They have—though it should be noted that they are often careful to pick and chose when—seen and noted the collective affect of individual sin in everything from the pervasiveness of pornography to corruption in the state.  Their solution, at least to the problems they choose to recognize, is to attempt to renew only the individual, rather than both the individual and the power or plausibility structure of which the individual is a part.[28]  It is crucial, when dealing with society, to engage both individuals and institutions (political and social) simultaneously.[29]  Furthermore, such a perspective overemphasizes personal responsibility to such an extent that it ignores responsibility to others.  The authority issues already discussed, the emphasis on individual and personal responsibility, and self-imposed pietism[30] frequently combine to cause evangelicals blinded to everything around them.[31]  The language of “chosen-ness”, which we will examine further in nationalism, and ideological conservatism further compound the problem by encouraging a separatist/Gnostic approach to others: what’s the use of reforming those who are already beyond redemption?  Worse, in matters such as poverty, some fundamental evangelists such as Billy Sunday blame the problem solely on a lack of personal responsibility and personal sinfulness.  Though Sunday correctly identifies a link between poverty and lack of work ethic, he manages to completely overlook the blatant societal disparities in wealth distribution and educational and economic opportunity.[32] 

            Finally, individualism encourages a fatal dualism, a sacred/secular split in the manner to which we think and act.  The dualistic dichotomy is largely a product of the Enlightenment in which objective knowledge, reason, and experience become deified over subjective faith, thought, and dogma.  Sadly, the church in general (this is by no means limited to evangelicals, though they pick it up especially heavily) has bought into dualism seemingly unflinchingly.  Os Guinness defines two interpretations of the sacred/secular split in his work The Call, the Catholic and Protestant distortions, respectively.  It is a mistake, he contends, to elevate the sacred at the expense of the secular, placing an overemphasis on spiritual work; thus is the Catholic distortion.[33]  It is a mistake, too, to separate the secular from the sacred, to say that the Gospel has nothing to say to the public realms of government or business, and reduces private vocation to nothing more than another word for work, thereby degrading the fullness of the human person yet again.[34]  Besides having serious societal implications, which Guinness spends the better part of the book explaining, dualistic individualism privatizes anything considered subjective and limits all public expression to objective, rational truths accepted by all reasonable persons.[35]  It causes serious complications for the Gospel message in particular as the sacred/secular split would have one contend that the Gospel is only meant for the individual conscience, and not institutions.[36]  This is part and parcel too, of the problems that individualism poses for evangelism.  Dualism, particularly of the Protestant stripe that Guinness speaks of, denies God’s sovereignty and authority over all Creation, limiting it to only bits and pieces.  Furthermore, it limits both the ability to make ethical and moral claims and the strength of these claims. In practice it limits public expression of the authority of the Gospel from speaking to all areas of life to speaking simply to private, individual choices.[37]

            In conclusion, individualism errs on the basis that it replaces a proper understanding of Biblical authority, which we will investigate later on in Part II, with a license for autonomy by deifying the individual and their autonomous authority.  It convolutes and limits proper understanding of the human person and evangelism, appropriates a hermeneutical misapplication of sola scriptura, and, finally, encourages a dangerous dualism in our everyday thinking.

Conservatism; Evangelical History, Separatism, & Gnosticism

            Conservatism is typically marked by a desire to conserve something, usually something that is felt to be lost—often permanently.[38]  Conservatism is a bit of tricky ideology in that what is meant to be conserved, and is often therefore deified and idolatrized, changes depending on the context of the time period.  There is no one event, issue, or time period that all conservatives wish to return to; consequently conservatism is more of a leach ideology.  As an example, a French conservative in 1789 would wish to conserve something very different from present day American conservatives: conservatism latches onto present day situations and looks backwards to another time, a better day.[39]  Conservatives are often accused, too, of merely wanting to regain and restore nothing more than what they have lost of their own power and privilege, and it is here that we return to evangelicalism.[40]  In this section we will look at how evidences of conservatism can be found in evangelical social and political action, along with the relationship between conservatism and separatism/Gnosticism and the relationship between conservatism and individualism.

Evangelical conservatism can be tied just as much, if not more so, to historical experience as it can to theological presuppositions.  John Green traces this back to the 1920’s, during which a major doctrinal clash had was underway for control of the Protestant denominations.  Essentially, a battle between fundamentalists (holding to a strong individual Gospel and government moral regulation), and modernists (advocating the more liberal Social Gospel which eventually took root in the mainline Protestant denominations) erupted in the early 1920’s.  By the end the same decade, the fundamentalist faction had been largely crushed.  Further subdued by such public embarrassments as the loss of the Scopes trial, both fundamentalists and evangelicals,[41] frustrated, alienated, and embittered, began, by 1930, to withdraw into their own religious circles.  Their very individualized hermeneutic, especially in terms of chosen-ness language, lent itself well to biblical prophecy concerning apostate churches and the decline of society,[42] and separatism/Gnosticism provided an easy answer to the problem.  “This perspective suggested the futility of social reform and political action, a position reinforced by an intense focus on individual redemption.”[43]  Thus the fundamentalists and evangelicals began the intensely focused building of their own subculture focusing on evangelism and the creation of religious institutions.[44]  Their model of cultural engagement was largely quiescent, though they continued to hold strongly in a trickle up and out sort of revival strategy.[45]

After making moderate gains through the Depression years on the local level, evangelicals came out from their cave during the war and post-war years with a new battle-plan…and indeed that is exactly what it was.  They began to re-engage the political realm, at least in matters of moral conscience (abortion, liquor, later on gay rights).  Not long after, evangelicals split again after attempts to reform the strong separatism and narrowness of the more hard-core fundamentalists, thus leaving the fundamentalists on their own and forging a new group, the neo-evangelicals.  Cultural and political engagement was still only on conservative issues, though the neo-evangelicals expanded the political agenda gradually, especially through and following the 1960’s.[46]  Fundamentalists, however, continued their largely back-seat driver, separatist quiescence approach through the 1960’s as evidenced by Jerry Falwell’s hallmark comment: “I would find it impossible to stop preaching the Gospel…and…do anything else—including…fighting communism or participating in civil rights reforms.”[47]

Continuing onward into the 1970’s and beyond, the evangelical community continued to expand and grow, outward as well as inward.  Though cultural and political engagement began to increase, it was still largely conservative in nature—especially in fundamentalist circles—though even the neo-evangelical movement held government solutions to societal problems at an arm’s length.[48] The 1980’s in particular began to see the increase of the televangelist niche market, and the megachurch movement.  The Moral Majority both came and went within a decade’s time, followed by Robertson’s Christian Coalition, thus setting up the infamous Christian Religious Right. The explicit political institutions of the Religious Right beginning with the Moral Majority dawned a new day in the history of evangelical political engagement.  However, dismay with the political system did not take long to set in, and before long, politics was once again vilified and calls were made to return to the religious separatism.[49]  Groups such as the NEA[50] along with a growing number of progressive and reformed evangelicals (such as Jim Wallis’ Call to Renewal) continue to push forward and broaden the political and cultural agenda, largely in spite of both the mainline Protestant Social Gospel and the Gnostic separatism of the fundamentalists.[51]

A short history of evangelicals’ and fundamentalist’s political and cultural engagement from the 1920’s onward demonstrates three tendencies: a tendency toward conservative stances socially and politically, the entanglement between conservatism and separatism/Gnosticism, and the relationship between conservatism and individualism. 

To begin with, conservatism is best denoted by a desire to conserve something.  So our question is, what do evangelicals desire to conserve?  Our answer is, primarily, evangelicals desire to conserve, right or wrongly, the moral integrity of the nation and, in particular, personal morality.  They often see a national decline in personal morality in such things as increases in violent crime, gambling, and the repealing of prohibition;[52] negative Supreme Court cases such as Engel v. Vitale[53], Abbington v. Schempp[54], and Roe v. Wade[55]; and increases in drugs, sexual promiscuity, gay rights, and pornography.[56]  Their conservatism is especially noted in their political action, which is limited almost exclusively to litigating against codified abortion, preventing the codification of gay rights, school prayer issues, and public establishment and expression of religion.[57]  They have a desire to return to romanticized periods of American history, namely the Agrarian era of pre-modernity and industrialization,[58] as well as the Post-World War II conception of the American nuclear family.  Also, they have a strong desire, and rightly so, to recover the institution of the family (though for more individual reasons), and sentiments of a pristine communal wholeness; a time when an individual’s loyalties were fewer and less demanding.[59]  

They also wish to recover their prominence, power, and privilege in American cultural and political life.  The connection between separatism and their political gains and failures, and, consequently, their socio-political power and prominence, seems to be quite direct.  Notice, in going over a brief span of evangelical history, they only separated from society (Anabaptist traditions aside), when they felt pushed out (as in the late 1920’s), or when the political system just did not work fast enough for their tastes (demise of Moral Majority, eventual decline of Christian Coalition).  They long nostalgically to return to periods in time in which they not only were a part of the majority, but also in which they had effective cultural and political influence and significance.  Though this does not explain so well the rise and fall of the political engagement of the late 1970’s, 1980’s and early to mid 1990’s, there is a reason they desire to conserve the pre-1920’s/WWI and 1950’s period beyond the moral majority; they actually enjoyed cultural and political significance.[60]  The relationship between Gnosticism (while highly doctrinally evident) and conservatism also seems to enjoy a direct relationship between their conservative ventures and their political success.  Gnosticism and separatism typically go hand in hand. 

In addition, conservatism as ideology confuses traditions, and can lead to a Christian nationalism that is unable to distinguish between the Great Christian Tradition and national traditions.  This can be traced in part to the founding of this nation on Christian principles, and the conservative desire to preserve the heritage from which the nation comes and the heritage from which their faith derives.[61]  This will be hashed out a bit more in the following section relating to nationalism.

The existence of the aforementioned errors relating to individualism certainly does not help either.  Conservative individualism limits the scope of the political and social agenda (at least in the case of the evangelicals) to largely individual, moral choice issues at the cost of other domestic (except immigration) and especially international issues (except Israel and
Venezuela).  In addition, when political and cultural engagement are not going especially well, when nothing is really being conserved or brought back, it becomes incredibly easy to fall back on individualized doctrine that has a deep overemphasis on personal responsibility at the cost of other existing issues—in other words, evade one’s own responsibility while placing it squarely on another, or to just ignore it altogether.  It also evidences a sort of engagement schizophrenia, in which their sentiments of
America’s imminent moral decline are coupled with campaigns to arrest and reverse the same inescapable decline.[62]  Perhaps the reason is that conservatism inherently provides no positive direction forward, only a reaching backward to occasionally arrest the otherwise imminent downward slide of society forward into the abyss.[63]

In conclusion, conservatism as a creed, an ideology, is dangerous because it tends to romanticize a conception of the past that never existed—a sort of reverse utopianism.[64]  Sure, we could return to the era of the 1950’s, but we would have to reinstate the Jim Crow regime and the Cold-War era fears of nuclear holocaust.  We could, too, go back to the Agrarian era, but then would lack a number of medical cures that we presently have today among many other cultural and technological advances.  Evident here as well, conservatism as an ideology tends to get stuck in the mud.  It wishes to conserve and return to the past so strongly that it neglects to take the good from the past and bring it to the present.[65]  In terms of community, conservatism is no better than individualism, it can only account for relationships and communities on the basis of shared beliefs and nothing else.  Finally, conservatism can limit evangelicals to becoming primarily politically and culturally reactive, instead of proactive.[66]  If one is always looking to conserve something, how is one ever going to progress forward? Evangelical conservatism by its very nature is unable to offer anything in the way of positive direction—it can only apply the brakes occasionally to a society that may well be headed over a cliff.[67] 

Nationalism: God’s
Chosen Nation?

            Nationalism is, simply stated, idolatry of the nation.  A nation is more than merely its geographical location and consequent citizenry, but also a concept in which a set of virtues and values common to the citizens exists within a political community.[68]  In this section on nationalism, we will examine nationalism in general, and the fourfold dangers of Christian nationalism: hermeneutical, state as instrument of God, conservative romanticism, and confusions of citizen allegiance.

We will enter our glimpse into nationalism, and evangelical nationalism in particular, through the lens of community.  We have already discussed that individualism carries no meaningful account of community and conservatism accounts for only a pragmatic definition of community–being with likeminded people is usually desirable, especially in matters of faith and politics.  However, neither ideology accounts for community outside of the walls of its own bubble of existence.  Nationalism provides a channel through which evangelicals will always be a part of a greater community outside of their bubble–the nation.   Nationalism recognizes, correctly, that persons cannot be islands, that people seek their identities through communities which necessarily make claims to their loyalties and demand certain degrees of personal sacrifice for their collective good.[69]  Furthermore, nationalism offers a communal transcendence, an opportunity to be part of something greater than oneself.  In the
United States, nationalism is usually evidenced more by adherence to a set of virtues and values than by mere citizenship.  These often include, but are not limited to, individualism, private property, liberty, democracy, equality, and freedom, as well their overarching ideological principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

The first problem with evangelical nationalism is primarily a hermeneutical issue.  Historically, Christian Nationalists have believed that their ethnic group or political nation is specially and specifically called and chosen by God to fulfill a great divine purpose in the world, and contemporary evangelicals are no exception.[70] Many evangelicals, though again particularly the fundamentalists, have a penchant for reading the Exodus story and making direct correlations between Old Covenant Israel and the contemporary United States as God’s chosen nation.[71]  The use of such language can be traced all the way back to the colonial era in which John Winthrop affirmed his Puritan colleagues by stating, in no uncertain terms, that the US would be set up as a city on a hill, a light of Godliness to all other nations.[72]  Throughout the nineteenth century, many evangelicals firmly believed that “the American experiment in measured liberty and self-governance was intended by God to usher in his millennial kingdom and thus be a blessing to the rest of the world.”[73]  Subsequent ventures in the twentieth century, including political organizations such as the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition,[74] along with grassroots, more apolitical people and groups such as turn of the century evangelist Billy Sunday and the Promise Keepers movement consistently appeal to similar Exodus-informed nationalist sentiments to this day.[75]  The problem with adapting an Exodus narrative and a belief in the United States as God’s new chosen nation and people to contemporary American history is that it unduly ascribes Biblical promises intended for all persons and nations, the whole of Creation, or the Body of Christ in particular, to only one particular geographic concentration of people under the same government.[76]  

The second problem with Christian nationalism follows closely on the heels of the hermeneutical error we just spoke of.  Chosen-ness informed nationalism can turn into a license for state run and sponsored theocratic imposition on the whole of domestic society and anything within the nation’s sphere of international influence.  It turns into a spiritually rooted sort of manifest destiny in which the nation is called to spread its ideals and institutions abroad and tends to blind them from seeing ideological and practical faults in their own manner of doing business both domestically and abroad.  More importantly, nationalism often dangerously subsumes the role of the state with the role of other institutions, such as the church or even family:[77] it makes room for the state as the legislator, teacher, propagator, and enforcer of morality. 

            Third, evangelicals in particular are disposed to an interesting two-part ideological concoction: a sort of conservative Christian nationalism that takes on both ideological and political dimensions.  Like conservatism, one of the weaknesses of nationalism is that it has a tendency to identify certain norms for and of political and cultural life with particular, romanticized manifestations of those norms at a particular period of American history.[78]  When evangelical nationalists romanticize the Agrarian family of the pre-world war one period, or the suburban nuclear family of the 1950’s, they are judging God’s norms for society based on precedents in national history that they believe exemplify the family best rather than in God’s norms for human existence that transcend time and place.[79]  They also tend to romanticize and place an excessive amount of faith into certain conservative American ideals such as limited government, states’ rights, protection of individual freedoms (everything from gun ownership to lower taxes), emphasis on limited social responsibility and the consequent emphasis on personal responsibility, a focus on individual and voluntary support for the poor, and the night-watchman state.[80]  Their political conservatism mixes with their ideological conservatism and nationalism when they make the appeal to God and country based on these romanticized, one-size-fits-all ideals to matters of everything from domestic issues such as immigration to matters of foreign policy and interaction such as trade agreements and globalization.

            The romanticism of such ideals often leads to a perception of national history that is blinded to the existence of national sin in that same history (note that they wish to return to the 1950’s and seem to completely forget about segregation).  When sin is detected, national or otherwise, they typically do not look to the political theology and social presuppositions of the nation, but instead point to a departure from the nation’s former pristine wholeness, purity, and biblical foundation during their romanticized, pre-Fall golden-age.[81]  When certain aspects the foundation of the nation are not exactly as Christian as they would like, they will often artificially “construct a usable past serviceable to a more Christian future.”[82]

            Finally, evangelical nationalism is tempted to pay homage to the nation that is only due, in reality, to God.[83]  When the nation is viewed as the instrument of God, and American Christians are perceived as being the new chosen people, it becomes easy to perceive the City of
God with the city of man as being one in the same.[84]  It confuses the allegiance of the Christian splitting it between both kingdoms simultaneously.  Furthermore, and again like conservatism, it tends to confuse the respect of national traditions and for the Great Christian Tradition by placing an undue amount of respect and faith in national symbols, laws, and documents.  As we discussed in the last point of critique, evangelical nationalists often equate American forms of governance to God’s divine choice of government, and may even go so far as give a sort of divine status to documents such as the Constitution.  This sort of unhealthy devotion for one’s country transcends a healthy patriotism and becomes a dangerous, unquestioning ideological nationalism.

            When combined with the language of chosen-ness and a preexisting doctrine of manifest destiny, it becomes easy evangelicals to view the nation as the obvious light of God to the world meant to spread democracy and other Christian virtues and ideals to the nations of the world.  It is a bit ironic that, for all the talk of chosen-ness as a people and as a nation, that both conservative evangelicals domestically, and the United States as a nation abroad, are typically viewed more as an ignorant city in a hill rather than the positively influential city on a hill to which they liken themselves.  Nationalism, in short, errs because it divides Christians’ allegiances by equating a city of man with the City of God, romanticizes history, and encourages an improper hermeneutic that misapplies Old Covenant promises to the present day
United States.

Conclusions

            Both the plus and the minus to ideology is that it is only a perversion of otherwise good ideas.  Individualism is good insofar as it places an emphasis on the individual person and ascribes a certain healthy degree of autonomy.  We are largely indebted to liberal individualism, which fostered individual freedoms, human rights, and equality.  All of these characteristics of the human person are good.  Where individualism distorts its own recognition of the good is when the focus becomes so heavy on choice and interpretation that authority turns into a license for unquestioning authority of autonomy.   Conservatism follows the same principle.  Evangelicals rightly assert that not everything is right in today’s modern world, and that some problems need to be fixed.  They have some genuinely good things they wish to conserve, but by always working on the defensive, they cannot ever push forward.  Nationalism may deify the nation and those in it, but the concept of a nation in itself is not bad.  A healthy expression of patriotism is a necessary component of any polity. 

            Evangelicals’ frequent and misplaced romantic conservative nostalgia, subsuming nationalism of God and country, and Kantian-like individualism[85] have all, at times, stifled and limited their cultural and socio-political engagement and influence.  It is largely due to these traces of ideology in American evangelicalism that they have been leveled as being more of a city in a hill rather than a city on a hill. 

Part II: Remedies For Renewal
Introduction

            From the beginning of this essay we have been comparing the pervasive evangelical affair with ideology to a physical sickness.  In part one we looked at the roots, causes, and symptoms of the evangelical ideological sickness.  In part two, we will look at what will best remedy the problems that we discussed in part one. 

            What does a healthy evangelicalism look like?  How do they regain cultural, social and political influence?  If problems with engagement arise from a misconception of the individual and of Christ, then they need to recover a full doctrine of the human person and of Christ.  If problems with engagement arise out of ideological conservatism and nationalism, then they need to recover their real allegiance, and their actual place in history.  Consequently, evangelicals need to recover their identity, their allegiance, and their context.  In doing so, they ought to come to rid themselves of much of the present ideological tendencies within themselves, and emerge from their city in a hill with a greater awareness of themselves and their place in God’s world.

Identity: Personhood Regained

            The easiest answer to liberal individualism is, quite simply, that no man is an island.  This is not sufficient however, and it must be added that humankind, by nature, cannot be, and never will be, an island.  Evangelicals already understand rather well, at least in word, that all of humanity is made in the image of God, and therefore it would be unnecessary to go over the theological implications thereof.  However, on account of their individualistic theology, they have laid themselves prone to forgetting that humans are persons, and not individuals. 

What exactly qualifies personhood under the image of God is a bit difficult to pin down.  Both Catholic and Calvinist theologians from Augustine to Barth have written at length on the relationship between personhood and the imago dei.[86]  Despite very different conceptions and groundings of the human person, what can be gleaned from both is that humanity is relational.[87]  The human person is defined by their relationships to and with others:[88] “We are persons not by individual right, but in virtue of our relations to one another.”[89]  Finally, humanity fulfills itself when it is in a proper relationship to both other persons and, more so than to others, to God.[90]  If individuals are defined equally by their relationships as they are by themselves, then individualism stands not only as a perversion but an illusion: it attempts to convince us of being something that, by nature, we are not. 

However, one cannot go to the other extreme and become concerned with nothing more than humanity’s social existence.  The human person, rooted in the imago dei, has three aspects: eternal/spiritual, bodily/temporal, social.[91]  Evangelism, therefore, is not to be limited to pursuing individual souls, nor is it to be only concerned with matters of social justice.  We are called to care for the whole person.  After all, God has given humanity dignity forming us in His image, and He commands us to love and serve our neighbors.[92]  Christ, during His mission work this side of heaven clearly attended to all three aspects of the human person.[93]  While Christ came to earth to die and rise again, thus redeeming humanity, He also came to prove to us who He is.  If His mission was to simply redeem us through death, why then did He spend the better part of three years working miracles, teaching, and leading?  A proper exegesis of the New Testament reveals that Christ is not only concerned with the person and their soul but is also deeply concerned for their bodily and social existence as well. 

In addition, we must reconcile ourselves to a simple truth: humanity is finite, and God is infinite.  Consequently, He is the ultimate epistemological authority: the absolute standard of good and evil, right and wrong.  He reigns over the objective and subjective, the sacred and secular.  To claim that we hold the keys to the Truth of His ways or that a legalistic adherence to sola scriptura frees us from the possibility and risk of error is both presumptuous and prideful.[94] 

            When we admit that we are not, in fact, God, and that we do not hold the keys to all Truth, we are admitting that we fall under the authority of Christ.  When we admit to ourselves that humanity is both relational and individual, and that humanity develops relational responsibilities, we consequently discover accountability to and with others.[95]  We must admit too, that Christ is Lord over more than the individual.  His lordship extends beyond private conceptions of the individual soul and into the public and private, home and work, church and civic duties, evangelism and social responsibilities.[96]  If this is true, if Christ died and rose for the whole of Creation, rather than just part,[97] and, if He is Lord over all, then we cannot afford a dualistic split.  The sacred/secular dichotomy falls away in a poof of divine logic if Christ is Lord over the whole of the human person and the whole of Creation.[98] 

Pietism does not suffice as an answer to the sin in the world.  If God refused to abandon His Creation, than it should follow that His children cannot either.[99]  The scope of evangelism necessarily widens because Christ cares for the entire person and the institutions[100] of which they are a part.[101]  Authority necessarily falls into line because we understand that Christ is the ultimate authority, and, as we will we discover further in subsequent sections, Christ delegates authority to those here on earth as well.[102]           

Allegiance: Kingdoms, Authority, Identity

            The answer to this issue is rather short and sweet.  In the words of Abraham Kuyper, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry ‘Mine!’”[103]  We have already determined that we fall under the authority of Christ.  If we fall under His authority, than we are necessarily a part of His Kingdom.  Being a part of said Kingdom “calls us to a loyalty grounded in faith and exercised in obedience to Christ.”[104]  This demands too that we recognize our dual citizenship.  Though we may exist in two cities, our obligations and citizenship to the City of
God overarches any temporal, worldly citizenship we may possess.

            Whenever we equate a kingdom of man with the Kingdom, we allow the state to command our unflinching allegiance and assume a position of authority (potentially totalitarian) that it does not have.  Drawing from Abraham Kuyper’s theory of sphere sovereignty, every institution from business to marriage, public education to the state, inhabits a certain sphere in which its normative role is understood.  Each person acts responsibly within their own recognized sphere of authority.[105]  The confession that the Sovereignty and authority of God holds true for all nations and peoples “subjects all ideas of national sovereignty and state sovereignty to the central reality of the sovereignty of God over all creation.  It relativizes the statism, socialism, nationalism, and imperialism that claim for themselves sovereignty…over people’s lives…”[106]  Implicit in Kuyper’s doctrine is the belief that “we must acknowledge that this supreme Sovereign has delegated and still delegates His authority to human persons, so that on earth one actually never encounters God himself directly in visible form, but one always sees His sovereign authority administered in human offices.”[107]  Authority is both horizontal and vertical at the same time.  It is vertical in the sense that each sphere of human expression is supposed to recognize its place and pay homage to the one to whom it owes its very existence.  It is horizontal in that no single human-made institution can infringe upon the sovereignty of any other: the individual cannot subsume the family, the state cannot infringe upon the family.[108]

            The implications for nationalism should now be obvious.  However, the right ordering of authority in society also has implications for the individual person: it recognizes that one is under authority (and consequently various degrees of accountability) from multiple spheres of influence simultaneously.  If we are under multiple spheres of authority than it follows that we need to constantly and publicly be addressing the relationship among institutions so that boundaries are kept and each sphere is respected and its integrity honored.[109]  This demands that evangelicals be involved in the public square as well as the social and political processes from which they have removed themselves.  Democracy, mind you the very same democracy that evangelicals hold dear, only functions appropriately when all parties are involved.  Anyone separating themselves from the public cultural and socio-political spheres of life becomes undemocratic.[110]

Context: Finding a Place in the World

Finally, evangelicals need to recover their context.  Context here is not defined by, or limited to, our context of the neighborhood in which we live, the political party one chooses to be affiliated with, or necessarily the era in which one lives.  Primarily context is here meant in a macro-sense; an eschatological sense.  The American Church (note that this is not restricted to evangelicals) has been notorious for developing doctrines and stances that either promote attempting to literally build the Kingdom of God here on earth,[111] or engage in some sort of pietistic, Gnostic abstention from the culture assuming that it will make Christ come back faster.  They are either muddied with society or separated outside of it.  As we saw in part one, evangelicals in particular have taken up perceiving the world as being inevitably and inexorably worsening until Christ comes back, and any action taken to arrest that decline would be akin to arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.[112]  This approach, however, will not do.  We are implicated via multiple sources, to take responsibility for our world.[113]  We cannot build the Kingdom any more than we can claim that abstention will make it come faster: humanity will never be an end in itself, at least in terms of salvation and His Kingdom.  Evangelicals need to realize and wrestle with the reality that humanity presently resides between the already and not yet. 

In short, history is the story of God working in the world.  One could break down history thus far, as discerned from the Bible, in the following acts:  “Act 1, God establishes His Kingdom: Creation;  Act 2, Rebellion in the Kingdom: Fall;  Act 3, The King Chooses Israel: Redemption Initiated;  Act 4, The Coming of the King: Redemption Accomplished;  Act 5, Spreading the New of the King: The Mission of the Church.”[114]  The final act, however, is yet to come.  Christ has come, Christ has risen, but Christ has not yet come again.  Consequently, we cannot focus any more on the fact that Christ has come than His coming again.  We cannot hole up and run into the hills waiting for His return because we never know the day nor the hour.[115]  Even if we did, we have been commanded to be in the world as His witness.  By realizing where in history we all exist, evangelicals can embrace the tension of the already but not yet and engage the world realizing that, while we are responsible to it,[116] we are not responsible for fixing it tomorrow.  Consequently, when engaging in otherwise time-consuming processes (i.e. any sort of cultural/social/political reform and renewal) evangelicals can dump their schizophrenic engagement and stay in the fight for the long haul.  Evangelicals need to realize that it does not need to all happen tomorrow, and drop the assumption (especially in the political realm), that if it does not happen today than it just is not going to happen.[117] 

Conclusions

The changes necessary, both doctrinally and otherwise, are not remotely limited to the changes outlined here.  Indeed, for every institution evangelicals wish to engage, each will present a different set of challenges and take a unique set of changes to face and to reform.  However, these changes apply to almost every conceivable situation the evangelical church will face, and certainly constitute some of the most fundamental changes that ought to be made. By amending eschatological theologies and recovering fuller doctrines of God, Creation, Christ, and the human person, evangelicalism can begin to correct and reverse much of the ideology present throughout its theology and discourse.

Part III: Practical Suggestions Toward Renewal; Conclusions

            What part two looks like in practice is a very good question.  It just does not seem like it would go over well to preach in front of mega-church everything they are doing wrong and everything that they ought to now do right.  One cannot just preach something new and make the case and expect people to convert and suddenly start playing Kingdom politics and talking Reformed language and realizing that not every battle is going to be won here on earth because it is not our battle to win.  One sticking point of confusion is that at some point, the end will come, and since I tend to see history as progressive, I have to question myself, will God use people to bring about the end and how will we know it is here, or coming, when it is? I suppose my answer is that yes, God will use us. He does not have to (He does not have to do anything, He’s God), but the history of the Bible reveals to us that God uses people, His people, His Creation, all the time to bring about His ends to His glory. There is no reason to suspect that He will not do so here as well. My second answer to myself is that our job, our place, is not to question when, where, or how. Though the Creation groans for redemption and longs to see it take place (otherwise why would we bother with ideology to begin with?), it is not our place to question when. We were not here when the earth was made; we have no real right to question God.  Apart from God we would not have rights anyways.  In any case, our place is to have the eyes to see and the ears to hear what the Spirit, what God, is doing here on earth: How is the City of
God manifesting itself in the city of man today?  How is the Spirit moving in the American political system?  Where is He in the culture of China, the United Nations, Dafur, the global South, the dot com industry, the physics department at CalTech,
Faith
Baptist
Church in
Auburn, MA, in your life?  Where is the

Kingdom of
God instituting itself in our present day institutions?  The only way to have eyes to see and ears to hear the Kingdom and the work our Father is to actively acknowledge Him.

So we start our suggestions toward renewal with prayer. Nothing can ever be renewed without the diligent prayer of Christians; Christians cannot be expected to have the ears or eyes to hear and see if they are not praying first.  It is impossible to discern the times when one is not daily communicating with the One who is keeping the times in existence.  In particular for those who already understand and live out the Gospel as we have described it, it will take prayer to bring others around to see the world as it ought to be seen and to live a Christian life as it ought to be lived.  Through prayer, through asking God to provide wisdom and opportunity, we begin to see the Kingdom at work around us.

That being said, the process has to begin first with internal renewal.  And internal renewal begins with persons with a vision who commit that vision to earnest, honest, and patient prayer, and spread that vision to others.  It takes the humbling of oneself to realize our place in the world, and our responsibility to it.  Once individual persons catch onto the vision they spread it to the whole of their church, and the church spreads it to other churches and on into the community.  Then other churches see the vision and run with it in their communities, and more and more communities begin to become affected.  As more communities become affected, institutions of civil society, mediating structures, begin to appear with people in them with the same vision.  Thus we have both the organic church and the institutional church doing the same thing at the same time…moving forward, changing minds, changing hearts, changing communities. Theoretically this keeps on working its way up the chain of command on into state governments, nations, multi-national corporations, and supranational organizations. It is an optimistic battle plan, but it seems the logical path.  In short, evangelicalism will regain cultural authority when it begins to practice what it ought to be preaching, both organically and institutionally. 
            Once evangelical Christianity can discern the identity, allegiance, and place in history it ought to have, it can begin to challenge the ideology in itself and the ideology in others.  It will regain cultural influence because it will actually be engaging it.  It will cease to be a city in a hill, and even a city on a hill, because it will realize that its place is a city within the cities.[118]

Bibliography: City in a Hill

Augustine. City of
God. CCEL. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.html>

Bandow, Doug. “Biblical Principles: The Role of Government.” Standing Amidst the Ruin: Doing Justice & Confronting the Powers. Ed. Herbert, Jerry S. Washington DC: CCCU, 2004.

Bartholomew, Craig G.; Goheen, Michael W. “The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story.” Foundations For Public Involvement.  Ed. Nick Brown. 
Washington DC: ASP, 2006. 

Brink, Paul A. “Selves in Relation.” The Re-Enchantment of Political Science.  Ed. Heilke, Thomas W.; Woodiwiss, Ashley. Lanham MD:
Lexington Books, 2001.

Canavan, Francis, S.J. “The Image of Man in Catholic Thought.” Catholicism, Liberalism, and Communitarianism, the Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Moral foundations of Democracy.  Ed. Bradley, Gerard V., Grasso, Kenneth L., Hunt, Robert P. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers:
London, 1995.

Cerillo, Augustus Jr. & Dempster. “Evangelical Political Conservatives and Liberals Search for an Evangelical Social Ethic.” Salt and Light: Evangelical Political Thought in Modern
America. Ed. Cerillo, Augustus Jr. & Dempster, Murray W.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.

Cizik, Richard. “A History of the Public Policy Resolutions of the National Association of Evangelicals.” Toward an Evangelical Public Policy. Ed. Knippers, Diane; Sider, Ronald J. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005. 

Fackre, Gabriel. The Religious Right & Christian Faith.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1982

Falwell, Jerry. “Ninety-five Theses for the 1980s” Salt and Light: Evangelical Political Thought in Modern
America. Ed. Cerillo, Augustus Jr. & Dempster, Murray W.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.

Garber, Steve. “But We Don’t Blink.” Foundations For Public Involvement.  Ed. Nick Brown. 
Washington DC: ASP, 2006.

Grasso, Kenneth L. “Beyond Liberalism: Human Dignity, the Free Society, and the Second
Vatican Council.”

Grasso, Kenneth. “The

Subsidiary
State: The Common Good, the State, and the Principle of Subsidiarty in Catholic Social Thought.” Catholicism, Liberalism, and Communitarianism, the Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Moral foundations of Democracy.  Ed. Bradley, Gerard V., Grasso, Kenneth L., Hunt, Robert P. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: London, 1995.

Green, John C. “Seeking a Place.” Toward an Evangelical Public Policy. Ed. Knippers, Diane; Sider, Ronald J. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.  

Guinness, Os. The Call. 
Nashville: Word, 1998. 

Gutterman, David S. Prophetic Politics. Ithica:

Cornell
University Press, 2005.

Kauffman, Christina. “Robertson: ‘Don’t turn to God’: New Dover board angry at televangelist’s comments.” The
York Dispatch. 16 November, 2005.

Koyzis, David T. Political Visions & Illusions.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Kuyper, Abraham. “The Antirevolutionary Program.” Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society. Ed. McCarthy, Rockne M.; Skillen, James W. 
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Mahurin, Ronald; Sherratt, Timothy. Saints as Citizens.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995. 

Marshall, Paul. God and The Constitution. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC, 2002.

McFarlane, Graham. “Living on the edge – moving towards the centre.” Evangelical Quaterly. January 2006, Vol. 78. EBSCOhost.

Gordon
College. 05 May 07. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=gor&db=aph&AN=20256344&site=ehost-live&scope=site>

Mouw, Richard J. “Abraham Kuyper: A man for this season.” Christianity Today; 10/26/98, Vol. 42 Issue 12, p86.  EBSCOhost.

Gordon
College. 02 May 07. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=114&sid=7e3396a9-695c-4a12-89f3-fde9854b3b17%40sessionmgr107>

Mouw, Richard J. “Humility, Hope, and the Divine Slowness.” Foundations For Public Involvement.  Ed. Nick Brown. 
Washington DC: ASP, 2006.

Murphy, Brian. “Robertson apologizes for saying stroke was a divine punishment.” The Associated Press. 13 January, 2006.

Newbigin, Leslie: Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1986.

Newbigin, Leslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. 
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1989

Packer, J.I. “How to Recognize a Christian Citizen.” Christianity Today. 19 April 1985.

“Pat Robertson.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 30 Apr 2007, 06:16 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 May 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Robertson&oldid=127066792>.

Penning, James M.; Smidt, Corwin E. Evangelicalism: The Next Generation.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic/Renewed Minds, 2002.

Petro, Nicolai N. The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture.  London:

Harvard
University Press, 1997.

Plato. The Republic. Trans. Bloom, Allan.
USA: Basic Books, 1968;  Preface 1991.

Quebedeaux, Richard. “The Young Evangelicals: Revolution in Orthodoxy.” Salt and Light: Evangelical Political Thought in Modern
America. Ed. Cerillo, Augustus Jr. & Dempster, Murray W.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.

Rahtjen, Bruce D. Scripture and Social Action: A Guide to Understand the Social Witness of the Church.
New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Smith, Christian. “Living Narratives.” Foundations For Public Involvement.  Ed. Nick Brown. 
Washington DC: ASP, 2006.

Storkey, Elaine. “Sphere Sovereignty and the Anglo-American Tradition.” Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyper’s Legacy for the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Lugo, Luis E.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Unknown. “Robertson called for the assassination of
Venezuela’s president.” N.C., Media Matters for
America.  22 August, 2005.

Vries, Paul de. “Evangelical Denominations at the Foundations of Modern American and British Social-Political Structures and Policies.” Toward an Evangelical Public Policy. Ed. Knippers, Diane; Sider, Ronald J. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.

Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005.

Wuthnow, Robert. “The Political Rebirth of American Evangelicals.” The New Christian Right.  Liebman, Robert C.; Wuthow, Robert. 
New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1983.

[1] For definitions of evangelical, see Penning & Smith, 175-176.  [Penning, James M.; Smidt, Corwin E. Evangelicalism: The Next Generation.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic/Renewed Minds, 2002.]

[2] Quebedeaux, Richard. “The Young Evangelicals: Revolution in Orthodoxy.” Salt and Light: Evangelical Political Thought in Modern
America. Ed. Cerillo, Augustus Jr. & Dempster, Murray W.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989. 68-72

[3] Koyzis, David T. Political Visions & Illusions.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.  27-29

[4] For an accessible, short, and well-written study on liberalism as an ideology, see chapter two of David Koyzis’ Political Visions & Illusions.  A full citation is available in footnotes and in the bibliography.

[5] Storkey, Elaine. “Sphere Sovereignty and the Anglo-American Tradition.” Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyper’s Legacy for the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Lugo, Luis E. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

[6] It actually includes more than four, but we must limit ourselves somewhere, and these four are the most pertinent to our discussion.  

[7] One of the major benefits of the “Jesus and me” construct is that can bring a healthy and highly relational dimension to ones spiritual existence.  Though I may come down hard on this construct, it certainly has its benefits, and there are many evangelicals that recognize the breadth of authority, seek honest and meaningful accountability, and realize that they do not, in fact, hold all the keys to the interpretation of Truth and have indwelled an intensely personal relationship with their Savior.  Furthermore, if actualized appropriately, the relational construct of Jesus and me actually encourages relationships with other Christians in the manner and to the depth of which I will be discussing later.  The problem, again, is when authority becomes autonomy.

[8] Newbigin, Leslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. 
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1989.  189 

[9] All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me.

[10] Unknown. “Robertson called for the assassination of
Venezuela’s president.” N.C., Media Matters for
America.  22 August, 2005.

[11] Kauffman, Christina. “Robertson: ‘Don’t turn to God’: New Dover board angry at televangelist’s comments.” The
York Dispatch. 16 November, 2005.

[12] Murphy, Brian. “Robertson apologizes for saying stroke was a divine punishment.” The Associated Press. 13 January, 2006.

[13] “Pat Robertson.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 30 Apr 2007, 06:16 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 May 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Robertson&oldid=127066792>.

[14] Koyzis, 71: Newbigin, 189; “A purely individualistic Christianity…reflects the individualism of our culture with its enthronement of the autonomous reason as the judge of all things has to face – as though it were a separate question from conversion – the matter of relating gospel to culture.”

[15] This is seen frequently in church splits over doctrinal issues, statements or comments made from the pulpit that did not fly with the congregation…the pastor, whether his comment was right or wrong…is forced to leave the congregation.  It propagates the authority problem and tends to convince each side that the other is in fact wrong and that they must be correct. 

[16] I find it curious how these types of churches and pastors usually despise the Pope and his Romish ways because they are too authoritative.  Yet, ironically, the very authority structure they deplore is almost the exact same one they have, except with even less accountability (outside of the preferences of the congregation).  See also Guinness, 98-99: [Guinness, Os. The Call. 
Nashville: Word, 1998.] 

[17] Fackre, Gabriel. The Religious Right & Christian Faith.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1982.  31-32

[18] Ibid. 31-34.

[19] Newbigin, 199

[20] Ibid.  82-83; 165.  For relevant statistics, see Penning & Smith: 51, 56, 63,

[21] Ibid. 165

[22] Ibid. op cit.

[23] Koyzis, 70

[24] Packer, J.I. “How to Recognize a Christian Citizen.” Christianity Today. 19 April 1985.

[25] Penning & Smith, 100

[26] Newbigin, 164-165; 83

[27] Plato. The Republic. Trans. Bloom, Allan.
USA: Basic Books, 1968; Preface 1991.  514a-540c

[28] Newbigin, 198

[29] Ibid, op. cit.

[30] “And the North American conservative evangelical community is essentially a coalition of pietist movements.”  Mouw, Richard J. “Humility, Hope, and the Divine Slowness.” Foundations For Public Involvement.  Ed. Nick Brown. 
Washington DC: ASP, 2006.  106

[31] Curiously, evangelicals have often seen evangelism in the proper light outside of the domestic scene. Rahtjen,  106-107 [Rahtjen, Bruce D. Scripture and Social Action: A Guide to Understand the Social Witness of the Church.
New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.]

[32] Gutterman, David S. Prophetic Politics. Ithica:

Cornell
University Press, 2005.  57-58

[33] Guinness, 31-35

[34] Ibid. 38-40

[35] Koyzis, 67

[36] For a good practical look at this split, read chapter four of Gutterman’s Prophetic Politics (see footnote 21 for full citation), on the Promise Keepers organization.

[37] Newbigin, 198

[38] Koyzis, 73

[39] Ibid. 72-74

[40] Ibid. 73

[41] Including members of the Anabaptist and Baptist traditions.  (Baptists including Southern, American, and Conservative)  Members of the Baptist tradition were much less likely to foster doctrinal separatism, such as the Anabaptists are, though both of guilty of the Gnostic heresy at times and fierce individualism.
Vries, Paul de. “Evangelical Denominations at the Foundations of Modern American and British Social-Political Structures and Policies.” Toward an Evangelical Public Policy. Ed. Knippers, Diane; Sider, Ronald J. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.  69

[42] Green, John C. “Seeking a Place.” Toward an Evangelical Public Policy. Ed. Knippers, Diane; Sider, Ronald J. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.  18-19

[43] Ibid. 19

[44] Ibid, op cit.

[45] Marshall, Paul. God and The Constitution. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC, 2002.  35

[46] Green, 21-23

[47] Ibid. 23

[48] Ibid. 24

[49] Ibid. 28-30; Fackre, 13-28

[50] For an accessible and relatively comprehensive look on the history, goals, policy initiatives, failures and successes of the NEA, I would recommend reading the following:
Cizik, Richard. “A History of the Public Policy Resolutions of the National Association of Evangelicals.” Toward an Evangelical Public Policy. Ed. Knippers, Diane; Sider, Ronald J. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005. 

[51] Green, 30

[52] Green, 20

[53] 370 U.S. 421 (1962) – banned public-school sponsored prayer from schools.  See also Wallace v Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

[54] 374
U.S. 203, 225 (1963) – banned the Lord’s prayer and Bible verses in public schools from being read aloud.  See also Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

[55] 410 U.S. 113 (1973) – the infamous pro-abortion case.  See also Planned Parenthood v Casey, 500 U.S. 833 (1992) and Gonzales v Carhart, 550
U.S. __ (2007)

[56] Falwell, Jerry. “Ninety-five Theses for the 1980s” Salt and Light: Evangelical Political Thought in Modern
America. Ed. Cerillo, Augustus Jr. & Dempster, Murray W.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.  160-165  See also; Gutterman, 55-58

[57] It is important to note that the political agenda is growing rapidly and has included much action by the NEA to foster environmentalism and issues of social justice both domestically and globally.

[58] See Gutterman’s chapter on Billy Sunday for a full explanation of his conservative desire to push backward to Agrarian America.  55-58

[59] Koyzis, 88: See also Christian Smith’s discussion on narratives, in particular his discussion on the Community Lost narrative.  [Smith, Christian. “Living Narratives.” Foundations For Public Involvement.  Ed. Nick Brown. 
Washington DC: ASP, 2006.  14-15]

[60] Cerillo, Augustus Jr. & Dempster. “Evangelical Political Conservatives and Liberals Search for an Evangelical Social Ethic.” Salt and Light: Evangelical Political Thought in Modern
America. Ed. Cerillo, Augustus Jr. & Dempster, Murray W.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.  21-23

[61] Koyzis, 91-92

[62]
Marshall, 16

[63] Koyzis, 96.  This truth of conservatism appears to comport well evangelical eschatological problems.  If the world is beyond redemption, if sin is only going to increase and get worse until Christ comes back, what is the use of attempting to be proactive?  Only an occasion of arrested development is necessary when it conflicts with the most important Biblical ideals.

[64] Koyzis, 86

[65] Ibid. 88-89

[66] Note that almost all evangelical political action is reactionary.  Even the great upswing in evangelical political activity in the late 1970’s was largely reactionary following Roe, the Christian racial quota  suggested by the IRS in 1978, and the efflorescence and extravagance of the electronic, televangelist church.  Wuthnow, Robert. “The Political Rebirth of American Evangelicals.” The New Christian Right.  Liebman, Robert C.; Wuthnow, Robert. 
New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1983. 174-175
See also; Cerillo & Dempster, 23-24

[67] Koyzis,. 96: paraphrased. 

[68] Koyzis, 97-100

[69] Ibid. 98

[70] Ibid. 119

[71] Major evangelical groups and people who frequently employ a Christian nationalism include but are not limited to the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Wallbuilders http://www.wallbuilders.com/ and its founder David Barton .  See also Penning & Smith, 113.

[72] Koyzis, 121

[73] Ibid.  op. cit. 

[74] Ibid. op. cit

[75] Gutterman, 51-69; 106-115

[76] Koyzis, 122

[77] This blurring of the roles of state and church are particularly evident in Russian Orthodoxy.  See chapter three of Nicolai Petro’s The Rebirth of Russian Democracy.  Full citation available in the bibliography.  Also see Newbigin, Leslie: Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.  119

[78] Koyzis, 121. paraphrased.

[79] Ibid. op cit.

[80] Bandow, Doug. “Biblical Principles: The Role of Government.” Standing Amidst the Ruin: Doing Justice & Confronting the Powers. Ed. Herbert, Jerry S. Washington DC: CCCU, 2004.  These views are especially consistent with Christian Realism.

[81] Koyzis, 121

[82] Ibid. op cit.

[83] Ibid. op cit.

[84] See Augustine’s City of God for a further and proper discussion on the cities of God and man, respectively.  Full citation available in the bibliography.

[85] Canavan, Francis, S.J. “The Image of Man in Catholic Thought.” Catholicism, Liberalism, and Communitarianism, the Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Moral foundations of Democracy.  Ed. Bradley, Gerard V., Grasso, Kenneth L., Hunt, Robert P. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers:
London, 1995.

[86] For a good exposition and analysis of both Catholic and Calvinist schools of though in relation to personhood, see Brink, Paul A. “Selves in Relation.”  Full citation available in bibliography.

[87] From the Catholic perspective see Grasso, Kenneth L. “Beyond Liberalism: Human Dignity, the Free Society, and the Second Vatican Council.” 37.  From a more Protestant perspective, see Brink, Paul A. “Selves in Relation.” The Re-Enchantment of Political Science.  Ed. Heilke, Thomas W.; Woodiwiss, Ashley. Lanham MD:
Lexington Books, 2001.  88-91

[88] Brink, 93

[89] McFarlane, Graham. “Living on the edge – moving towards the centre.” Evangelical Quarterly. January 2006, Vol. 78. EBSCOhost.

Gordon
College. 05 May 07. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=gor&db=aph&AN=20256344&site=ehost-live&scope=site  See also Brink, 94

[90] Grasso, 37-38

[91] Stott, 35

[92] Stott, 35  (Genesis 9:6, James 3:9)

[93] Stott, 39

[94] Guinness, 98: Newbigin, 49

[95] Grasso, Kenneth. “The

Subsidiary
State: The Common Good, the State, and the Principle of Subsidiarity in Catholic Social Thought.” Catholicism, Liberalism, and Communitarianism, the Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Moral foundations of Democracy.  Ed. Bradley, Gerard V., Grasso, Kenneth L., Hunt, Robert P. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers:
London, 1995.

5

[96] Stott, 39: paraphrased.

[97] Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005.  49

[98]
Marshall, 33

[99] Wolters, 49: Packer

[100] Institutions are not simply individuals getting together [Storkey].  Institutions are expressions of personhood, they form out of the relational nature of the person [Canavan].

[101] Newbigin, 236. 

[102] Matthew 28:18

[103] Mouw, Richard J. “Abraham Kuyper: A man for this season.” Christianity Today; 10/26/98, Vol. 42 Issue 12, p86.  EBSCOhost.

Gordon
College. 02 May 07. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=114&sid=7e3396a9-695c-4a12-89f3-fde9854b3b17%40sessionmgr107>

[104] Mahurin, Ronald; Sherratt, Timothy. Saints as Citizens.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995.  38

[105] Koyzis, 253

[106] Storkey, emphasis added.

[107] Kuyper, Abraham. “The Antirevolutionary Program.” Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society. Ed. McCarthy, Rockne M.; Skillen, James W. 
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

242

[108] Ibid. 241

[109] Storkey, 191.  paraphrased.

[110] Gutterman, 124

[111] Through concepts like the Social Gospel.

[112] Packer

[113] “Knowledge implies responsibility which implies caring.  To know means to care – if one does not care, then one does not know.” Garber, Steve. “But We Don’t Blink.” Foundations For Public Involvement.  Ed. Nick Brown. 
Washington DC: ASP, 2006.  60  The simple truth that Christians are capable of being fully aware of the human condition and the means to assess that condition, demands responsibility toward their fellow humans.

[114] Bartholomew, Craig G.; Goheen, Michael W. “The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story.” Foundations For Public Involvement.  Ed. Nick Brown. 
Washington DC: ASP, 2006.  25-26

[115] Matthew 26:36

[116] Guinness makes a convincing argument on the distinction between responsibility to and for, respectively.  For this discussion see Guinness, 86-88

[117] Mouw, 117-118

[118] Newbigin, 237

            From 2005 to 2006 1.12 million people became lawful permanent residents of the US[1] while in the same time interval an estimated 408,000 became undocumented residents.[2]  Another frightening set of governmental statistics reports that from 2004 to 2005 the uninsured population grew by over a million people to 46.6 million, or nearly 16% of the total US population.[3] Immigration and healthcare both involve people and consequently are inextricably linked issues. As these issues reach crisis proportions, it is no longer an option to wait passively and see what will happen—as a society, and more importantly, as Christians, we must act to correct these problems to the best of our abilities and wisdom.
            The debate over immigration and healthcare focuses on two topics—what should be done about illegal immigrants in our healthcare system, and to what extent legal immigrants[4] should be able to access public healthcare.[5]  Current law renders illegal immigrants indefinitely ineligible for all public healthcare benefits other than emergency Medicaid.[6]  Through emergency Medicaid and, some contend, the use of fraudulent documents to access benefits they are ineligible for,[7]  illegal immigrants impact  US healthcare. Legal immigrants are barred from federal healthcare benefits (other than emergency Medicaid) for their first five years in the country,[8]  but may be eligible for state programs. With regards to legal immigrants, the debate centers on whether or not this federal ban should be maintained. In general two coalitions form around these issues—I will label them ‘pro-restriction’ and ‘pro-access.’
            The coalition which I have labeled pro-restriction[9] tends to focus on healthcare issues involving illegal immigration, and perceives the ultimate problem to be immigration policy with healthcare as one of several derivative problems. Pro-restrictionists argue that illegal immigrants create a considerable negative impact on public health and healthcare in the US. Persons entering the country illegally bypass the medical screening that those who enter legally are subjected to, thereby posing a possible public health threat.[10] The more focused upon argument, however, is financial. Though illegal immigrants are ineligible for most public health benefits, they are able to use emergency rooms for care—at the expense of the taxpayer—because of their eligibility for emergency Medicaid.[11] The pro-restriction coalition also takes a stance on legal immigrants’ access to healthcare, supporting the present five-year ban on eligibility for Medicaid. They argue that immigrants are supposed to be either self-supporting or supported by their sponsor[12] and receiving public healthcare benefits causes immigrants to violate ‘public charge’ laws.[13] 
            The pro-access coalition[14] largely focuses their attention on healthcare issues involving legal immigrants and perceives the ultimate problem to be limited access to quality healthcare in general,[15] with immigrants viewed as one particularly affected community.[16] The pro-access coalition protests unwaveringly that access to healthcare is declining and that something must be done to reverse this trend—particularly among legal immigrants for whom rates of access are already disproportionately low and are dropping the fastest.[17] Still perceiving healthcare as the larger problem, the pro-access coalition bemoans the comparatively lower healthcare access of citizen children whose parents are immigrants.[18] The pro-access coalition also makes a financial argument, claiming that providing public healthcare to legal immigrants is a cost-effective way to ensure better individual and community health.[19] With regards to illegal immigrants and healthcare, the pro-access group contends that emergency Medicaid should not be barred to anyone. Recently, many groups taking a pro-access stance have come out against new Medicaid regulations[20] that require documentation of citizenship status before benefits can be received—they argue that these regulations will discourage all immigrants (even eligible ones) from seeking public health assistance[21] and further will pose a civil rights violation to minorities and the elderly who are likely to face undue burden in producing proof of citizenship.[22]
            The different issue given primacy and the different arguments presented are indicative of distinctive priorities and perspectives unique to each coalition’s worldview.[23] The pro-restriction coalition tends to argue from an individualist perspective.[24] Priorities include supremacy of democratically passed law, personal responsibility, and respect for government. The pro-restrictionists are acting in response to perceived threats to these priorities—immigration laws not enforced, legal immigrants not held personally responsible for healthcare[25], and illegal immigrants allowed to mock the government’s authority to regulate migration—and see immigration, not healthcare, as the primary issue because it is from this end of the debate that the threat to their priorities originates. Additionally, the individualist perspective of government’s role accepts the government having the power to regulate immigration,[26] but largely excludes government as having the obligation or right to provide certain persons with healthcare at the expense of others.[27] Priorities and perspectives can also be seen in proposed policies: the pro-restriction coalition strongly supports measures that will increase enforcement of current immigration laws[28] (respect for law as a priority) and would make immigrant sponsors responsible for the immigrants’ healthcare costs (perspective of government not being responsible for healthcare).
            The pro-access coalition argues primarily from a collectivist perspective.[29] Their priorities are the community[30] and economic classes.[31] Their perspective requires that government protect the integrity of the community as a whole, which in turn requires defending the economic lower class. Whereas the pro-restrictionist coalition is largely content with current law and therefore is reacting primarily in response to perceived threats to their priorities and perspectives, the pro-access coalition views current law as violating their priorities and current government actions as not fulfilling the role their perspective requires. Adherents to the pro-access view focus on healthcare over immigration because they see good health as integral to maintenance of the community—how can persons contribute fully if they are not healthy?[32] Publicly-funded healthcare is a focus because of the implications for lower socio-economic classes in our society, the group that the collectivist viewpoint demands be protected. The pro-access coalition’s perspective on the role of government leads to the opinion that the US government has the right to decide who will and who will not be allowed into the country, but then the consequent responsibility to make sure that all who are in the country are afforded a basic level of healthcare regardless of their ability to pay.[33] 
            The priorities of both coalitions can be defended biblically, and, I would argue, the proposals of both groups contain some elements of biblical justice. The pro-restrictionist coalition’s views are consistent with a Christian realist perspective which emphasizes individual morality and responsibility as well as obedience to God-ordained government.[34] The emphasis on obeying the law and on promulgating regulations that fully enforce the law is in line with the belief that Christians should obey the authority that God has placed over them. The Christian realist sees within the Bible provisions that individual believers and communities be responsive to the plights of the poor, but does not see government as the means to this end—while the American church is perhaps responsible for making sure immigrants’ healthcare needs are met, the government does not have this responsibility. In fact, since public aid necessarily requires that the government collect more taxes from society as a whole, large-scale welfare programs of any kind can constitute a unjust encroachment by the government on individuals’ right to use their resources as they see fit. On the other hand, the views of the pro-access coalition can be defended from a Christian radical perspective which emphasizes community and active concern for the poor. Healthcare matters to the Christian radical because good health is necessary for active participation in the community. In addition, the radical feels he or she must defend the poor against injustice; when and where possible this takes the form of social and political action.         
            I see the Bible as the story of God’s people—as believers we inherit this story and this tradition and are obligated to incorporate the lessons learned by the people of God throughout history into our lives and actions today. The situation of immigrants closely parallels the story of believers in both the Old and New Testament. The Israelites are outsiders in Egypt until they are called by God to their new home. Gentiles are excluded from God’s family until they are invited in by Christ. Old Testament law[35] and New Testament letters[36] admonish readers to not forget the plight of the outsider and the foreigner among us as they are where we once were. Biblical justice consequently requires that believers ensure that immigrants be cared in the same way we care for our own. Because the government allows immigrants to come into the US, the government becomes responsible for these people to the same extent that the government assumes responsibility for native-born citizens. I take a stance similar to that of the Christian radical perspective and I consequently see Christians having a responsibility to advocate for equality of access to the community and communal resources for immigrants. The four epochs of Biblical history involve God’s actions towards the whole of humanity—the creation is incomplete until community is created (in Adam and Eve); in the fall all of humanity is separated from God and their relationships with each other are also twisted; the redemption restores the collective church as the Bride of Christ; the consummation will be the perfection of the whole world—and I am thus encouraged to consider first the community rather than the individual. One’s health influences one’s ability to participate in community by affecting one’s ability to work, to play, to communicate, to be physically close, and in extreme cases, to even physically live in the community. If justice involves each person being restored to community, and I believe it does, than justice requires that each person be able to access healthcare. I do agree with the conclusion reached through a Christian realist perspective that argues that neither the government or the church should simply support those who could support themselves but choose not to.[37] I agree that effort must be required on the part of each individual—after all, even if one is healthy one will not be a part of the community unless one chooses to engage. But I return to the Christian radical view that argues justice requires that those who cannot support themselves are still a necessary part of the community. Consequently, in regards to legal immigrants, I advocate a system that ensures their access healthcare, either public or private. Employer-sponsored immigration law rightly assumes that an immigrant should be either self-supporting or supported by his or her sponsor. Consequently, I advocate that part of the employer petitioning process include guaranteeing access to employment-based healthcare for the immigrant, thus requiring that employers treat their workers, foreign as well as native, fairly.[38] Family-sponsored legal immigration is more problematic. Current law ‘deems’ a sponsor’s income as the immigrant’s income when determining eligibility for Medicaid (after the immigrant is beyond the five-year ban) until the immigrant has worked 40 quarters or become a citizen. To the extent that current laws are just in determining who is need of Medicaid (another argument entirely)[39] I feel that this is a proper way of ensuring that family members who are able to support immigrants do so. However, family reunification should not be dependent on whether or not a sponsor can provide for healthcare costs for the immigrant. I therefore recommend that the five-year bar be lifted for immigrants entering the country through family-sponsored visas but that the ‘deeming’ process (or some similar measure) be maintained.[40] With regards to illegal immigrants, I recommend that current laws, which require emergency Medicaid to be administered and restrict the collection of immigration status data from recipients, be maintained.
            This obviously does nothing to solve the problems of healthcare faced by the illegal immigrant community. The reason for this is that the problems inherent in the illegal immigrant community must be dealt with through immigration policy—only through a reduction in size of the illegal population will these problems be alleviated, whether this is accomplished through amnesty, earned legalization, attrition, or deportation.[41] We must not restrict emergency Medicaid to illegal immigrants—denying care to anyone is not only amoral but places a undue burden on the physicians who must make often split decisions on who can and should be cared for and who can and should not. Further, although requiring documentation of immigration status would seem to decrease the problem of illegal immigrants using emergency Medicaid as a source of primary care and also would perhaps help to recoup some of the costs, this would discourage illegal immigrants and other immigrants from seeking medical care at all, which could prove dangerous not only to the immigrants themselves, but also the public as a whole because of the danger of communicable diseases. Justice requires that we treat all of those who we allow into our midst as creatures of God and support each in his or her endeavor to live out their potential in our community—this requires that healthcare be made accessible through a variety of just means.  

2. Statistic given by the Office of Immigration Statistics (Hoefer, M., Rytina, N., & Campbell, C. (2006). Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2005).

3. United States Census Bureau: DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Lee, C. H. (2006). Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005 (20-26)

4. Although the term “legal immigrant” includes both lawful permanent residents and naturalized citizens, I will be using the term to denote lawful permanent residents only.

5. Medicaid is the primary source of publicly-funded health coverage and is accessible to low-income families and certain other groups. The other important source of publicly-funded health coverage is the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) which is available for children who come from families with incomes less than 200% of the poverty line but too high to qualify for Medicaid. Immigrants’ access to SCHIP is the same as to Medicaid, and consequently I will focus my attention on Medicaid (National Immigration Law Center (2002). Guide to Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs 4th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Author).

6. Access to emergency Medicaid is dictated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. EMTALA requires hospital emergency rooms to provide a medical screening to anyone who requests one (or has a medical screening requested on their behalf). Additionally, EMTALA requires that hospital emergency rooms then provide stabilizing treatment, or, if unequipped to provide this treatment, provide a transfer to a facility where the necessary stabilizing treatment can be obtained. (Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (n.d.) Responsibilities of Medicare Participating Hospitals in Emergency Cases. State Operations Manual, Appendix V)

7. Federation for American Immigration Reform (2005). What’s Wrong With Illegal Immigration? and Palaskiewics, James, Healthcare Policy Specialist, Congressman Charlie Norwood’s Office. Personal interview with Laura Dwyer

8. Until 1996 legal immigrants generally were held to the same eligibility requirements as citizens for means-tested benefits including Medicaid and AFDC (Assistance to Families with Dependent Children). States were prohibited from basing eligibility to federally funded benefits on immigration status. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act  (PRWORA) of 1996 divided legal immigrants into pre-enactment (having entered the country before August 22, 1996) and post-enactment (having entered the country after this date) categories. States were given the option of maintaining benefit eligibility for pre-enactment immigrants (most did). For post-enactment immigrants, however, PROWORA barred access to federally funded public benefits for their first five years of residency in the US. Later legislation restored post-enactment immigrant’s access to Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI) and Food Stamps, but the bar on access to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF, the replacement for AFDC) and Medicaid remained (Singer, Audrey (2004). Welfare Reform and Immigrants, a Policy Review).

9. The advocacy group FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) is a notable member of this coalition, as is Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA). CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) is a more moderate member of this coalition.

10. This is particularly dangerous because many illegally-entering persons are coming from areas of the world where communicable diseases uncommon to the US are endemic Federation for American Immigration Reform (n.d.). Illegal Immigration and Public Health.

11. James Palaskiewics of Congressman Norwood’s office (Palaskiewics, James, Healthcare Policy Specialist, Congressman Charlie Norwood’s Office. Personal interview with Laura Dwyer) notes that no one knows for sure the full extent of the cost of illegal immigrants’ use of emergency Medicaid because hospitals are not allowed to enquire as to immigration status when giving care. Palaskiewics says what is known for sure is that there is at least a percentage of illegal immigrants who are not paying taxes, and it is taxes that cover the costs of emergency-Medicaid when the recipient is unable or unwilling to pay. More precise figures are offered by the Center for Immigration Statistics (Camarota, Steven (2004). The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget) which argues that illegal households, on average, cost the government about half of what other households but that they pay about one fourth of what others do in taxes (CIS attributes this to the income level of illegal immigrants, not their evasion of taxes) and consequently illegal households create a net deficit at the federal level. The largest governmental costs for illegal immigrants are Medicaid and treatment of the uninsured.

12. Jack Martin of FAIR argues that immigrants are assumed to be self-supporting (professionals) or supported by their sponsor (either their family member if they were granted a visa through a family-sponsored petition, or their employer if granted a visa through an employer-sponsored petition). Therefore if our immigration system is working correctly, immigrants should not need public support but should be able to depend either upon themselves or on their sponsors, and this is why legal immigrants are ineligible for public health benefits for their first five years. Another interesting facet of this argument centers on why immigrants should receive different treatment than refugees, who are eligible for public benefits upon arrival. Martin makes the argument that while most other immigrants have a sponsor (or are self-supporting, in the case of professionals) refugees are coming to the US in very different conditions and lacking a specific sponsor, the US public is essentially considered the refugee’s sponsor and thus responsible for providing public health benefits (Martin, Jack, Special Projects Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform. Email interview with Laura Dwyer). Marta Brenden, who works for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, confirms this interpretation of the law, noting that the difference between immigrants and refugees is that immigrants come to the US with a plan (which presumably should include how to support themselves or find support from family and friends) whereas refugees are fleeing and therefore lack a plan   (Brenden, Marta, Management Specialist, Office of Refugee Resettlement. Personal interview with Laura Dwyer, Charis Hnin, and Meghan O’Neill). Current law seems to indicate that the authors felt similarly. Under PRWORA a sponsor’s avadavat of support became legally binding (it was previously considered a moral obligation but not legally enforceable) until an immigrant became a US citizen or has worked a minimum of forty quarters. Additionally, PRWORA raised the level of income a legal permanent resident needed to achieve—to  125% of the federal poverty line—before they are eligible to petition for family-sponsored visas for their relatives. These two requirements represent an increased legislated responsibility on the part of immigrant sponsors for the well-being of their family members and (in the case of employment-based immigration) their employees (Singer, Audrey (2004). Welfare Reform and Immigrants, a Policy Review).

13. Federal law for more than 100 years has been in place to prevent legal immigrants from becoming dependent on public benefits. If an immigrant is determined to either be or be likely to become a public charge (dependent on assistance from the government) they can be denied admission to the US, become ineligible for permanent resident status, or be deported. Under Department of Health and Human services rules, receipt of public healthcare does not currently make someone a ‘public charge’ (see Morse, Ann (n.d.). SCHIP and Access for Children in Immigrant Families). The pro-restriction coalition would argue that receipt of public benefits should be considered grounds for considering someone a public charge and generally assume that this is true for the purpose of their arguments if not actually implemented in law (Martin, Jack, Special Projects Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform. Email interview with Laura Dwyer).

14. Notable members of this coalition include the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF), the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Congresswoman Hilda Solis (D-CA), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and (more passively) the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the National Association of Counties (NACo), and the National Governor’s Association (NGA).

15. Lack of health insurance is a problem because it results in less timely care for acute conditions, a lessened probability of chronic diseases being diagnosed, and decreased access to preventative care (Morse, Ann (n.d.). SCHIP and Access for Children in Immigrant Families). Additionally, health insurance, some contend, reduces mortality by 10-15% and improves annual earnings by 10-30% (Ewing, Walter A (2003). Not Getting What They Paid For: Limiting Immigrants’ Access to Benefits Hurts Families Without Reducing Healthcare Costs).

16. The American Academy of Pediatrics (Hall, Robert, Assistant Director, Department of Federal Affairs, American Academy of Pediatrics. Email interview with Laura Dwyer) advocates on behalf of an even more specific and vulnerable group—immigrant children. AAP points out that not only are immigrant children less likely to receive quality health care because they are less likely to be insured, but there also exists a host of diseases and conditions which foreign-born children are more likely to be afflicted by. Lack of healthcare is thus doubly harmful to this particular group.

17. As of 2004, 63% of native citizens and 62% of naturalized citizens held employer-sponsored health insurance as opposed to only 38% of non-citizens. In the interval from 2000 to 2005 the percentage of employers offering coverage decreased to 60% from 69%, with the largest share of this decrease occurring among small firms, an employment category where immigrants are over-represented. (Alker, Joan C. & Jennifer Ng’andu (2006). The Role of Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage for Immigrants: a Primer. Washington, DC: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured & National Council of La Raza).

18. Citizen children’s healthcare is affected by their parent’s immigration status for several reasons: parent’s fear of being deported due to allegations of ‘public charge,’ income verification problems for the purpose of receiving Medicaid or SCHIP due to the type of jobs that immigrants often work, and because of language barriers. (Morse, Ann (n.d.). SCHIP and Access for Children in Immigrant Families). More generally, when any member of a family lacks health insurance, other members of that family are less likely to receive timely healthcare (National Immigration Law Center (2004). Comprehensive Health Care for Immigrants: A Sound Strategy for Fiscal and Public Health).

19. Often cited in this argument are the examples of prenatal care and diabetes treatment. Prenatal care especially has been shown effective, with every dollar spent resulting in $1.70-3.38 in savings later (Flowers-Bowie, Lynda (1997). America’s Newcomers—Funding Prenatal Care for Unauthorized Immigrants: Challenges Lie Ahead for States and National Immigration Law Center (2004). Comprehensive Health Care for Immigrants: A Sound Strategy for Fiscal and Public Health). A similar argument, made by many in the pro-access coalition, states that restricting public healthcare from legal immigrants is actually more costly than providing it due to the high costs of caring for uninsured individuals—costs which will ultimately be covered by the government (Ewing, Walter A (2003). Not Getting What They Paid For: Limiting Immigrants’ Access to Benefits Hurts Families Without Reducing Healthcare Costs).

20. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), passed in February of 2006 contains new regulations requiring states to verify citizenship (or legal immigration status for those immigrants who are eligible) before awarding Medicaid. Previous to the passage of the DRA citizenship was required (part of the application involved checking a box attesting that one was a citizen or eligible permanent resident) but was not actively verified. The DRA also specifies the means by which citizenship can be proven, setting up a hierarchical system of documents to prove both citizenship and identity. (do I need a citation here?)

21. Specifically, the large numbers of legal immigrants (many of whom are children) who are members of mixed-status families will be discouraged from accessing public health assistance (National Council of La Raza (n.d.). Immigrant Health and Family Support Issues).

22. Victims of natural disasters, house fires, and elderly who were born at home and therefore might lack a birth certificate could all be negatively affected by laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to receive Medicaid. Also, because citizenship documents (birth certificates, passports, etc.) can be expensive to replace, such laws could also discriminate against minorities and the poor. (Wilson, Jennifer (2006). Are You a U.S. Citizen? Can You Prove It? and National Council of La Raza (n.d.). Immigrant Health and Family Support Issues).

23. I will be using the term priority synonymously with value and perspective to mean one’s perceived appropriate role of government

24. Individualists view society as being composed of individuals who grant limited authority to social institutions out of enlightened self-interest. For an individualist, the government primarily exists to safeguard the civic rights of individuals (McCarthy, et al. (1981). Three Alternative Social Philosophies. In Nick Read Brown (Ed.), Foundations for Public Involvement: A Reader (48-51). Washington, DC: Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities). In a democracy, the government’s authority is derived from the popular consent of the voting individuals. Laws passed by a democracy that are in line with the majority of these individual’s wishes are therefore valid. The government has no right to impose behavior on any individual except to protect the societally agreed-upon fundamental rights of all individuals.

25. Generally immigrants are perceived as not taking responsibility for their healthcare by not working hard enough to afford health coverage. James Palaskiewics presents another manifestation of this perceived irresponsibility—he counters arguments that new citizenship documentation requirements for Medicaid prevent citizen children of immigrant parents from receiving healthcare with the argument that this is an irresponsible decision on the part of the parents but that the government does not have the right to impose good decisions.

26. Immigration regulation is assumed to be in the best interest of all individuals of a society. This can be argued in several ways. In the context of healthcare, the argument that immigrants can pose a public health threat (Federation for American Immigration Reform (n.d.). Illegal Immigration and Public Health) and are a tax burden (Federation for American Immigration Reform (2005). What’s Wrong With Illegal Immigration?) are the most obvious.

27. This is not to say that members of the pro-restrictionist coalition entirely oppose public healthcare. What they tend to oppose, in the context of immigration, is policies that increase the size of the population receiving public health benefits (through allowing immigrants access, or by allowing increasing numbers of low-income, and therefore possibley benefit-eligible, persons into the country). From the individualist standpoint, providing healthcare to some at the forced (through taxes) expense of others, particularly those who are non-citizens, is an overstepping of government’s proper and limited authority.

28. Examples of this include: FAIR would make reimbursement to states of costs incurred due to illegal immigration contingent upon cooperation from the state in enforcing the spirit and letter of federal immigration law (Federation for American Immigration Reform (2004). Immigration Draining Health Care System), and would also support creating systems for data collection of illegal immigrants who use public benefits (Martin, Jack, Special Projects Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform. Email interview with Laura Dwyer ); Congressman Norwood sponsored the DRA which requires documentation of citizenship and identity before Medicaid can be awarded (Norwood, Charlie (n.d). Healthcare Platform).

29. Collectivism is a view of society where the collective is the primary reality and individuals have meaning and find their place only within the whole. The state is generally perceived as a manifestation of this collective, societal whole (McCarthy, et al. (1981). Three Alternative Social Philosophies. In Nick Read Brown (Ed.), Foundations for Public Involvement: A Reader (48-51). Washington, DC: Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities). The collectivist viewpoint generally focuses on economic classes, working to achieve equality by working for the benefit of the poor.

30. The community in this context is very often the Latino community (when immigration is the focus) but also can be the larger communities which immigrants settle within (this can be seen in discussions of how low rates of insurance effect the insured in the same community).

31. Immigrants who are affected by public healthcare legislation are generally low-income

32. Sarita Mohanty of the American Immigration Law Foundation argues that legal immigrants contribute to the community through their work and taxes and are therefore entitled to the same benefits as citizens. She poses the question to policy makers “how will immigrants work in their jobs, many of which are physically demanding, without good health?” (Mohanty, Sarita A. (2006). Executive Report: Unequal Access: Immigrants and U.S. Health Care). Mayra Alvarez of Congresswoman Hilda Solis’ argues that healthcare is a right primarily because good health is needed for full participation in the community. She argues that health is linked to one’s education, job, housing, and ability to pursue happiness office (Alvarez, Mayra, Legislative Assistant, Congresswoman Hilda Solis’ Office. Personal interview with Laura Dwyer. Wednesday, October 18, 2006).

33. National Governor’s Association (2004). Immigration and Refugee Policy and Ewing, Walter A (2003). Not Getting What They Paid For: Limiting Immigrants’ Access to Benefits Hurts Families Without Reducing Healthcare Costs.

34. While the application is my own, the description of the Christian realist and Christian radical perspectives can be found in: Herbert, Jerry (2004). Introduction: Three Evangelical Perspectives. In Jerry Herbert (Ed.), Standing Amidst the Ruin (7-24). Washington, DC: Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities

35. “Do not exploit the foreigners who live in your land. They should be treated like everyone else, and you must love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.” (Leviticus 19:33-34, NIV). See also Exodus 22:21 and Numbers 15:15

36. “Don’t forget that you Gentiles used to be outsiders by birth…together as one body, Christ reconciled both groups to God by means of his death…So now you Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners. You are citizens along with all of God’s holy people” (Ephesians 2:11, 16,  19, NIV)

37. This is based on biblical example; even provisions for feeding the poor such as leaving parts of fields for the poor to glean still required work on behalf of the beneficiaries. This would, presumably, prevent those who simply refused to work from benefiting from the hard work of others while helping those that truly had fallen on hard times.

38. Some may argue that this will lead to increased labor cost. I agree with them, but keeping labor costs down by denying healthcare either oppresses the immigrant workers or, if we were to remove the five-year ban on access to Medicaid, causes the government to essentially subsidize the cost of labor for the employer’s benefit at the public’s expense and I see neither of these situations as just viewed from any Christian perspective

39. The income ceilings for Medicaid eligibility are arguably too low—does someone who’s income is just above this ceiling really have the resources to pay for private healthcare?—probably not. This would have to be addressed in order for my proposal to effectively increase immigrants access to healthcare, because if an immigrants sponsor is only slightly above the income-ceiling for eligibility it is unlikely that they are able to provide healthcare for themselves as well as family members.

40. The reasoning behind this is that immigrants whose sponsor’s are truly unable to provide for their healthcare will be eligible for Medicaid despite the deeming process. Conversely, even without the five-year ban, deeming should prevent immigrants who do have family able to provide for their health care needs from becoming wards of the state.

41. Since my focus is healthcare, I will not speculate on which of these ways is the best other than to say that the current magnitude of the illegal immigrant population in the US is largely due to inaction on the part of the US government; I therefore think that we have essentially allowed these foreigners into our midst and should assume a level of responsibility for them.

           The general picture that emerges from the results presented…is that those who place a high value on salvation are conservative, anxious to maintain the status quo, and unsympathetic or indifferent to the plight of the black and the poor….Considered all together, the data suggest a portrait of the religious-minded person as having a self-centered preoccupation with saving his own soul, an other-worldly orientation, coupled with an indifference toward or even a tacit endorsement of a social system that would perpetuate social inequality and injustice.[vi]

            In the arena of theology it is arguable that many have chosen a sort of cafeteria Christianity in which theology becomes a colorful salad bar from which to pick and chose as one sees fit, according to his comfort level.  Such an approach to Christianity often conforms so closely to the world in which we live that there is almost no noticeable difference in a person or a Church’s existence from the world outside its doors.  The Church and/or the members of it become invisible – nearly or completely assimilated into the culture around them.  The ramifications of such a stance should be plainly obvious.  God calls us to be in the world, but not of it.  In this manner, the abdication of social action and the dilution of dogma to fit our secularist/relativist culture is in clear defiance of the Word of God.
            Finally, all of us, the ignorant, the abdicators, and the ideologues are often guilty of spending too much time blaming the world for just plain being the world.  Going back to the firefighter analogy, the firefighter may rebuke the house for burning, but that won’t put the fire out.  Christians must take part of the blame, or perhaps even most of it, when things don’t get better.  Since we are carriers of the everlasting light, our job is to naturally expel the darkness, and where true Christians are living and practicing their faith in bonded community the darkness will indeed recede.  “If in the community (indeed, in the world), there is more violence than peace, more oppression than justice, more secularism than godliness, is it because Christians and churches are not praying as they should?”[vii]  Are we working hard enough to be the salt and the light in our neighborhoods, towns and cities?  How will the world meet some of its greatest and most difficult challenges in the course of written history if Christians remain ignorant, uninvolved, or assimilated?[viii]

            Since so many of us have allowed the light of the world and the hope in which we share to become so marginalized, compartmentalized, and irrelevant in the public square, I wonder if our hearts have begun to fall prey to the same fate.  Light dispels darkness, and there can only be darkness where there is no light: In a country where nearly seventy-five percent of its population claims to be Christian, it seems awfully dark outside.

___________________________________

Recovering the Connection

            Based on these three examples, it can be simply said that what the world doesn’t see right now, and is going to need to see in the next fifty years (and well beyond) is a connection between belief and practice because, frankly, how can the world respond to Christ if Christians aren’t first responding to the world and how can Christians respond to the world when they aren’t doing anything?
            Saint Francis of Assisi once brilliantly quipped that we should “preach the Gospel at all times, and, when necessary, use words.”  Perhaps the reason the world is so dark is because Christians have mastered the art of talking and forgotten about the art of walking.  In order to demonstrate this point let me call attention to 1^st Peter 3:15b: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”  Most people see the obvious implications of this verse; be prepared to explain your faith.  Look deeper though.  If we look past the obvious into the slightly more subtle, we should see that in this passage Peter is not calling on us to stand on the Capitol steps with a microphone, or take over a subway station to pass out tracts.  He is really telling us that we shouldn’t have to do, well, anything.  Please don’t go so far as to say that I’m encouraging the eradication of vocal evangelism or the burning of tracts as I’m not; such forms of evangelism are critical at times to the spreading of the Gospel.  However, Peter makes a critical remark in pointing out that the hope we have through our walking in the Lord Jesus Christ should be so obvious and unmistakable that people will be asking us about Christ instead of the other way around.  To make my point a bit simpler, people have to see a connection between belief and practice.  You can talk all you want about the redemptive power of Christ and the need for people to repent and take Christ as their Savior, but if you’re not an obvious testament to the hope that you claim to have, if there isn’t an obvious and overwhelming connection between your belief and your practice, at best nobody is going to listen and, at worst, no one is even going to bother to ask.[ix]
Recovering a Social Spirit

            Though I feel Christianity will have to recover many things if it wishes to become a major influence again in the local and global culture wars, on Capitol Hill, or on the geopolitical grandstand, I believe it must start first by rekindling a social Spirit.  This social Spirit begins with a strong and transparent connection between belief and practice in light of 1^st Peter 3:15b and the abandonment of cop-out excuses and petty idols and ideologies, all of which we have already discussed.  The basis from which a social Spirit is founded comes from our understanding of the Biblical narrative.  We are called to love people in the name of Christ and give them the dignity, value, and respect in light of Creation and imago dei.  We are called to serve them all[x] in light of the fall because the fall has ushered in pain, suffering, poverty, and separation from God, which we, as Christians are able to amend on every level of being.  In this case, as in all the others, knowledge of means responsibility to; we know that humanity is sinful, depraved and in need of help to rectify physical and spiritual poverty, inequality, and injustice.  Whether we like it or not, all of us Christians have been implicated in our faith to serve the world and everyone in it selflessly with the love of Christ.[xi]

            In doing so, we will present an incredible witness to the world.  This witness is best evidenced in three ways: connection, unity, and love.  The first of my three points is ‘connection.’  When I speak of ‘connection’, I mean it not as in providing connections to others (specifically non-Christians) in the ‘real world’, though it certainly will accomplish such ends.  What I mean instead is that it offers the world a chance to see Christians putting their beliefs into practice.  If a visible connection between faith and practice is necessary for people to take us seriously, then our own personal transparency is crucial to our spreading the Gospel.[xii]  Secondly, Christians have an opportunity to engage in an act that is rarely seen these days in the Body; unity.  Though we all don’t agree on matters of eschatology, predestination, or transubstantiation, we can all agree that suffering isn’t the way the world ought to be and that it certainly isn’t the way the world was meant to be.  What a powerful witness to the Christian faith if both Catholics and Protestants, the black church and the white church could put aside theological tiffs, racial differences and a plethora of other divisive issues and work together to end abortion, combat racial and gender based inequality, promote justice and freedom in the Two-Thirds World, alleviate poverty and work together in local communities to combat the proliferation of drugs in American suburbs.  Finally, social service/activism is one of if not the best demonstration of the sort of selfless love that Christ demonstrated to the world in such an astonishing and radical manner.  Taking the time to become involved in your widowed neighbor’s life, becoming a volunteer at a local service ministry, taking part in peace demonstrations, or becoming involved in the sphere of politics and public debate all require the neglect of self for the betterment of others.  This selfless love stands in stark contrast to the selfish, utilitarian worldviews that permeate the whole of today’s culture.  What better witness to the cross and to world than to give our time joyfully for the sake of others!  Is this not the essence of the Gospel that Christ – the greatest example of a servant who ever lived – taught us?   

Conclusions   
            Simply said, Christians need to stop living apart from the radical social Gospel and turn their sights back onto serving the world in which we live; for how can the world respond to Christ without the Church first responding to the world and how can the Church respond to the world if individual Christians aren’t practicing what they believe?  We need to be in the world putting out the fires of brokenness, despair, hunger, thirst, persecution and injustice regardless of whether those suffering are Protestant, Catholic, Muslim or Jew.  Christ died for all; therefore we need to love and serve all.  We need to indwell, not just believe, Christ’s call to truly love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.  If we Christians actually begin to practice what we preach, and place our trust in the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, we will become an unstoppable force that not even the gates of Hell will be able to overcome.  This question, how will Christians respond to the world, is truly the single most important and pressing question facing the Body of Christ, every individual follower of Christ in the coming century, and the world itself.

ite missa est!

[i] Stott, John. Human Rights & Human Wrongs (Harper Collins; Grand Rapids, 1999) 84

[ii] Personal responsibility is a key feature and theme in the Bible and should not be ignored.  The Bible is fairly clear about individual responsibility to remain out of poverty.  However, that does not mean that pass the buck when it comes to those in financial or spiritual poverty.  Responsibility is also something that must be taught and learned.  (Proverbs 10:4; 20:4; 21:25; 24:30; 26:14-15)

[iii] Deuteronomy 15:1 1, Deut. 15:7, Lev. 25:35, Ps 37:21, Luke 3:1 1, 1 Tim. 5:8, Acts 6:1

[iv] Amos 5:18-19  These types also appear to evade action by welcoming the coming end of the ages.  Besides being in conflict with the concept of hidden and manifest (discussed more in the next paragraph), this notion rubs up squarely against our evangelical mandate. In light of the referenced verse from Amos we should see the end of the days as joyous in our complete redemption and purification as Christians, but His judgment is also something to be highly feared – if not only for our concern for non-Christians. 

[v] Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

[vi] Stott, John. 23-24

[vii] Stott, John. 85

[viii] Romans 8:33b.  It is also important to remember that the final judgment on eternal matters comes from God Himself, and not of us.

[ix] Author Steve Garber writes rather remarkably about the necessity of a connection between belief and practice in his book The Fabric of Faithfulness.

[x] Matthew 5:43-48 / Luke 10:29-37 / Luke 15:11-32

[xi]
Rom. 12: 9-21

[xii] As one T-shirt claims, “Jesus, save me from your followers.” 

Worldviews & Religion
      Let’s be honest. Everyone, no matter who they are, has some sort of worldview. Even if you live in a cave and can count the number of times you’ve left it in the past decade on your toes, you have some sort of worldview that provides you with the lense through which you view your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, your best friend and your worst enemy. It is your holistic take on life, the universe and everything. Inevitably, your worldview will effect how you think (and act politically. By now you’re probably thinking I’m getting off topic by talking about how worldviews affect politics and not how religion does. However, I really am talking about religion after all. If you think about it long enough and honestly enough, you’ll have to come to the conclusion that your convictions don’t just play a part-time, Sunday morning syndrome role in your worldview; your convictions are your worldview.
      This does of course posit an interesting definition of religion. If your religion is also your worldview, than this leaves open the possibility that what you truly worship isn’t actually a defined religion at all. It could be anything from money to Buddha, power to science, Jesus Christ to your pet tiger. Yes, I know, I know, religion is generally defined in a spiritual sense and is attributed to such faiths as Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. However, it could also be defined (though somewhat loosely I admit) as that which gives meaning and value to our lives. Since we humans generally worship that which gives our lives meaning and value, our ‘religion’, as I have defined it, is the most crucial aspect of our worldview upon which everything else in our lives is required to stem from. If someone lives their life for money, it will be reflected in their politics. If someone lives their life for Jesus, for power, or for themselves, it will be reflected in how they think about politics. If you are able to accept this definition of religion as being able to apply both spiritually and materially, than it becomes obvious that everyone brings their ‘religion’ to the table when talking politics. This is where the problem develops – at least for me.

Religion and Public Policy
      When asked if the influence of religion is acceptable in political thought, I argued that it was actually unavoidable. When I asked myself if the influence of religion was acceptable in policy, I said yes. This is somewhat of a lie. I said “yes” for two reasons. First, since the influence of religion on how people think and act politically is unavoidable, it would naturally follow that those in power would create public policy that lines up with their ‘religion.’ My second reason on why religion should influence policy isn’t really ‘yes’, but is undecided.
      My first point is rather self-explanatory, so rather than hash that point out unnecessarily, we’ll skip right to my second reason. Religion should not be involved in public policy when government attempts to furnish a clear and present establishment that stifles the freedom and liberties of other religious groups or becomes involved in excessive entanglement with religion. Christianity, especially Protestantism, has been used to a rather cushy position as a sort of ‘most favored ideology’ since colonial times. Only in the last sixty-five years has the federal government sought to change this implicit establishment.(1) The US Supreme Court, for better or worse, has taken Christianity out of its formerly prominent, public stature and relegated it to the private sidelines where nearly every other religious conviction from Islam to Judaism has been sitting for over two centuries. Suddenly we Christians, especially those of us in the Christian right, are complaining that we no longer have a place in the public square after being thrown out of it.(2) Such claims are only a half-truth. Granted we can’t say prayers in the morning in public schools, or at sporting events, or anywhere else explicitly public in deference to the handful of people who would actually bother to take offense at such actions, but that doesn’t mean we’ve been told to pack up and leave the country.(3) We’ve just been made equal with everybody else.
      In one sense I see this as good. State-supported religion has historically contributed to some of the worst wars and human rights violations in the history of the world. Also, government funded religion would likely “bring the struggle of sect against sect for the larger share or for any [money].(4)” This could place yet another heavy monetary burden on the state (and with the way the debt is going lately, it could use all the debt relief it can get). Third, state-supported government in schools could subject non-religious children to the horrors of hearing the word God every morning and potentially learning some good values.(5) Fourth, it appeals to that wonderful word “equality” which we Americans tend to love to hear and promote. Finally, I have a strange feeling that if the new state-supported religion were Islam, Christians wouldn’t be favoring state-supported religion all that much anymore. While we may grieve the loss of public prominence, we must also realize that the religious freedom that we allow to others is the exact same religious freedom that allows us to keep ours.
      In another sense, such a rejection of Christianity is dangerous. To fully understand the scope of this problem, please allow me to borrow from the thoughts of George Weigel as he examines the problem of religious neutrality in Europe in his book The Cube and the Cathedral. He writes of Europe, “How will a Europe constitutionally committed to “neutrality toward worldviews” find within itself the moral resources to live in tolerance and civility as the social and political pressures that will inevitably accompany an expanding Islamic population inside Western Europe intensify? What will a Europe committed to secularity in its public life do with people whose presence in Europe is economically essential but whose outlook is resolutely, even aggressively, unsecular?(6)” Granted America isn’t facing a massive influx of Islamic peoples, but Weigel hits on an important point. Thoroughly secularized democracies have the potential to be self-destructive. If the American government opts to gut itself of the ability to provide any sort of moral basis beyond the pathetic and false concept of tolerance that we have today, then we’re left with few options. At best, we may soon find ourselves (if we haven’t already) with an incoherent and confused rule of law and concept of justice. At worst, we may find ourselves in the same predicament that Weigel believes Europe is inevitably headed for.
      To sum up my second reason in direct connection to my thoughts on policy, outright establishment via state-supported religion is not a healthy choice for a pluralistic society. I’m a firm supporter of the excessive entanglement test. Lines need to be drawn, and they should not be crossed. However, neither is it a wise choice to attempt to airbrush away the moral foundation that this country rests upon in favor of a government completely neutral toward worldviews. To throw out the moral foundation upon which our rule of law rests is to offer up our body of law to the discretion of individual judges and lawyers interpreting our law as each sees fit. Such eclectic interpretation could wreak havoc on our body of law. Justice Story, in his opinion for Martin v Hunters Lessee(7), stresses the importance of uniformity in law in order to avoid “jarring and discordant judgments.” With eclectic, relativistic interpretations abounding, there would either be no uniformity whatsoever or the law would be so elastic and changing that it would be useless in effect.

Conclusions
      In conclusion, the influence of religion in political thought is unavoidable. In policy, I would ultimately argue that it is necessary. Without such an influence, we risk losing the foundation upon which our rule of law rests and from which all other policies stem.

Endnotes
1) In 1789 every one of the thirteen original colonies still had some form of state-supported religion written into their rule of law and/or state constitutions. Though some of the states repealed such establishments as early as 1790, others, like New Hampshire, did not repeal or amend their codes of law until as late as 1877
2) The formerly transparent public stature of Christianity and its relegation to the private sidelines is easily visible in cases such as Engel v Vitale [370 US 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261 (1962)], Murray v Curtlett [374 U.S. 203 (1963)], Stone v Graham [449 U.S. 125 (1977)], Wallace v Jaffree [472 U.S. 38 (1985)], and Lee v Weisman [505 U.S. 577 (1992)] to name just a few.
3) A number of more recent Supreme Court cases have ruled in favor of Christian groups and sects. They include but are not limited to; Lamb’s Chapel v Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Rosenberger v The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995); Good News Club v Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)
4) Justice RUTLEDGE’s dissent in Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township 330 US I, 67 S.Ct. 504 (1947).
5) It is very important to note that the American public school system is no longer the thriving Protestant education system it once was. It is now entirely secular.
6) Weigel, George. The Cube and the Cathedral pg. 14
7) 1 Wheat. (14 U.S.) 304, 14 S.Ct. 97 (1816)

Love and Jesus           
             “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called the children of God! And that is what we are!”¹ The second thing I see in this verse is that we are the children of God. My goal here, the purpose of this essay, is to flesh out what that means, as much as is possible. The first thing I see, however, is that this verse is about God’s love. Our identity as the children of God is first and foremost an action of God, and in particular, of His love. “For God so loved the word…”_­² that He sent Jesus Christ. Without Gods love, there is no Jesus-come-to-earth, no Christian, no Scripture, no Church, no nothing.  The love of God stirs in us a response of love that is first reciprocated to God and then, through Him, toward others. It is no coincidence that the greatest commandments are “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” and “love your neighbor as yourself.”^3­­ These commands are inextricably tied to one another. God loves us. I am one of us, and you are one of us. As I grow in love of God, I end up loving what he loves. I end up loving you, my neighbor.  Jesus is the absolute expression of God’s love. Jesus is God’s love made flesh. Jesus loved us so much that He “made Himself nothing…He humbled Himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross!”^4­­ God loves us enough to send Jesus and Jesus loves us enough to come and die for us. Without the death and resurrection of Christ, there would be no Christian. 

Identified by Spirit
            All that to say that the Christian is a result of God’s Love. God, in His love, sent Jesus. Jesus sent the Spirit, and it is the Spirit that is the true identifier of the child of God.  I have some friends who are from an island on which there are a grand total of four churches. Four whole churches. One of those churches is Roman Catholic, one is Methodist, one is Anglican, and one is Non-denominational. Now, the island is small, so it makes sense that there would be so few churches, but what’s interesting is this: my friends never knew, until they came here to America and we “enlightened” them, that there was any difference between the four churches. It had never occurred to them that, say, the Anglican Church might not be Christian, or that there was any difference between the Non-denominational congregation where they worshipped and the Methodist church where their cousins go. They knew the Catholic church was very “different,” but different is all it was. Not wrong. The idea that one denomination could be “more Christian” than any other was as new to them as feminism or revisionist history or driving on the right side of the road.      
            I am jealous beyond belief of my friends. You see, if they were looking for a local church, a local congregation of the Body of Christ of which they are members, they would simply walk into the closest building with a cross on it, sit through a service, talk to a few people about Jesus and God, and they would know within a Sunday or two if the place was a Christian church, and if it was a place where they could worship and grow and serve, and if they were called there. The Spirit in them recognizes the Spirit in the church. The Spirit in me recognizes the Spirit in you. “Do not put out the Spirits fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything, hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.”⁵ In America today (for I cannot speak for the whole word) there has been a great deal of putting out the Spirits fire. I think this accounts for the explosion of various denominations in the American protestant church. We say we are splitting over disagreements about truth, and that is true, but truth comes from the Spirit, and therefore a failure to agree on truth is a failure to completely listen to the Spirit on somebody’s part. Our disagreement with each other about truth comes largely when we fail to “test everything” in the Spirit.   Don’t misunderstand me and think I am advocating some happy, self-help, new-age spiritualism or anything like that. Christian spirituality must be grounded in truth. And truth comes from the Spirit, so the two strengthen each other. The Christian must walk in the Spirit. 

Living by Faith
            The Christian grows in knowing God and His love expressed in the person of Jesus Christ, and is identified by the Spirit. This all works itself out day-to-day in faith. Like Love in Jesus and Truth and the seal of the Spirit, faith is not really something we do, but more are a part of, because God has decided it to be so. Paul explains that “by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.”⁶­ The “and this” in the verse refers to the faith. “…[A]nd this [faith] not from yourselves.” Faith begins with God, but faith has to be lived by us. Faith has to be practiced. That’s what James is talking about, when he says, “show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.”⁷ Faith goes beyond knowledge about God. It goes beyond having truth in your mind. A faith that saves is a faith that does. A Christian walks by faith. A Christian walks by that which saves. I could go on. Walking by faith has layers of complexity in it. We are saved into a certain way of life. We are saved into a certain community, the other children of God. We are saved into a life of following Jesus’ example and being sanctified by the Spirit. There is too much involved in “the essence of Christianity” to put into a few pages and a few weeks of writing. God used the Bible and took thousands of years to do it. 

Closing Thoughts
            No matter what I come up with as my definition of a Christian, there will be people complaining that I have left something out and at the same time others who complain that I am adding too much. If I try to reduce the Christian belief to a few basic tenants, I will have some people arguing with me that it is not enough. On the other, if I go to the opposite extreme and put layers and layers of complexity in my definition, others will tell me I am being elitist. I’m tempted to throw the entire thing out and forget it, and to let God just do what He wants and not bother to try to figure it out.  In a sense, that is what I did in this article. It’s mostly about how God defines us, not about how we are defined. Definitions are words. Definitions come out of our mouths. If God spoke all things into existence, and Jesus is the Word, then we must be defined by God. And He has called us His sons and daughters.  God loves us and has called us His children. He has sent Jesus to make a way for it. He is a loving Father, so the Spirit comes and teaches us to love and know God and to walk by faith that saves us. We must respond. 

                                                                                                     Timothy Teal for AcrossTheGap '06

1. 1 John 3:1
2. John 3:16
3. Matthew 22:37-39
4. Philippians 2:7-8
5. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22
6. Ephesians 2:87. James 2:18

Preface and Introduction

            Unfortunately, I must preface my response with the following remarks: First, given the fact that there are only a couple weeks left of classes here at Gordon, almost all of my time has been dedicated to academic studies. As such, all the following are merely preliminary, inchoate speculations.  Secondly, it should be noted that the following discussion is an adaptation of my senior thesis paper on the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  With that said, let us turn to the question at hand…

“What does it mean to be a Christian?”

            Quite obviously, such a question merits a voluminous response; any single- or two-page reply cannot help but present itself as highly superficial and offensively reductionistic.  In light of this, I’ve opted to circumvent the original question and address another that is more or less tangential to the first.  The question I will address is: What are one or two essential theological principles that must be incorporated into every Christian’s (i.e., those who are true believers in and followers of Christ) life, but are commonly overlooked or ignored?
            The primary theological concept I wish to address is religiousless Christianity and its natural outcome (this-worldliness), religiouslessness being a salient concept/teaching of the twentieth-century theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Hence, I shall first explain the meaning of religiousless Christianity and its fruitful outcome (this-worldliness), and then apply these concepts to the central question Jeremy has proposed.

Religiousless-ness

Religious Christianity. To understand what Bonhoeffer meant by religiousless Christianity, we must first understand what he meant by religious Christianity.  Bonhoeffer wrote in his Letters and Papers from Prison:

What is bothering me incessantly is the question of what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us today.  The time when people could be told everything by means of words, whether theological or pious, is over, and so is the time of inward and conscience—and that means the time of religion in general. We are moving towards a completely religionless time; people as they are now cannot honestly describe themselves as religious any more… “Christianity” has always been a form—perhaps the true form of “religion.” But if one day it becomes clear that this a priori does not exist at all, but was a historically-conditioned and transient form of self-expression, and if therefore mankind becomes radically religionless—and I think that is already more or less the case (how else, for example, that this war, in contrast to all previous ones, is not calling forth any religious reaction?)—what does that mean for Christianity?[i]

            Hence, religious Christianity for Bohoeffer is self-expression of one’s faith (which in his view, has become distorted and egocentric).  In essence, religiosity does not originally possess a negative connotation.  However, the rationalism, technologism, industrialization, and war that he encountered in this world transformed this naïve, genuine religiousness into something disingenuous, artificially produced; hence, one begins to posture a disposition of religiousness that is essentially antithetical to religious experience.  For example, the historically-conditioned expression of Christianity may be a measurable sense of inward joy, or a hearty distancing from worldly concerns, or a perfectly fluid prayer that impresses those around us.  The Christian squeezes himself to conform to the perception of how he believes Christianity should be expressed, rather than allowing that expression to be an outflow of true experience.  And the more he squeezes himself to fit a role that contradicts the realities of existence, the more religious devises no longer comport with the actual dimensions of daily existence, and the more he is left with religious role playing, “religious” Christianity.[ii]  This is the same frustration Luther expressed in his objection to the Catholic Church: the Catholic Church had turned such things as confession into an outward religious practice. Confession as a sacrament had transformed repentance (the inward turning of one’s soul towards God) into a merely outward act.  Bonhoeffer often expressed his wariness of such an outward masquerade, what he called the “garment of Christianity.”  A prime example is found in another one of his letters from prison.  He writes:

While I am often reluctant to mention God by name to religious people—because that name somehow seems to me here not to ring true, and I feel myself slightly dishonest (it is particularly bad when others start to talk in religious jargon; I then dry up almost completely and feel awkward and uncomfortable)—to people with no religion I can on occasion mention him by name quite calmly and as a matter of course.[iii] 

            On a yet another occasion he would write, “To be a Christian does not mean to be religious in a particular way, to make something of oneself (e.g., a sinner, a penitent, or a saint) on the basis of some method or other, but to be a man—not a type of man, but the man that Christ creates in us.”[iv]

Religiousless Christianity. Religiousless Christianity then, allows for the mystery of the inexplicable and overwhelming: it is Christianity “without the temporally conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics.”[v] Here, religion is free from systematization and from a calculating “piety” in which one is conformed to a role that does not properly express inward faith.  Faith then, is never to be equated with religion; religion is a profanation of the mystery of faith.[vi]  It is for this reason that Bonhoeffer invoked the “discipline of the secret,” an unknown meaning of worship and praying which both returns to the Early
Church and still has yet to be discovered.[vii]
            In conclusion, religiousless Christianity, in Bonhoeffer’s own words, means “speaking in a new language…liberating and redeeming—as was Jesus’ language; it will shock people and yet overcome them by its power; it will be the language of the new righteousness and truth, proclaiming God’s peace for people and the coming of God’s kingdom.”[viii] Religiouslessness allows the Christian into a genuine relationship with Christ, for it is a faith void of pretension, in which one can remain open to Christ’s call here and now. For Bonhoeffer, adoption of this concept would later permit him to openly hear Christ’s call in his life to actively rebel against Hitler.

This-Worldliness

Entering into Christ. The outcome of religiousless Christianity is identification both with Christ and the world. With Bonhoeffer, religion is replaced by the state of actually being in Christ, the Pauline concept of dying and rising from the dead with Christ: It is the state of being included in the messianic birth-pains of the Kingdom of God, which was inaugurated with the incarnation of Christ and will reach its culmination upon his Second Coming.  Thus, rather than experiencing Christ in special “religious” acts we enter into Christian faith through this life in the world.  Christian existence is “always in essence a lived-out interpretation of being-in-Christ.”[ix]  We see then that God is not the “stopgap” God that fills the holes in our life, but is rather a God who subsumes every aspect of our being, who lays before us and in us a life of sola gratia in which everything is from grace.

Entering into the World. Participation in the reality of Christ by living in the world is most clearly found in his Papers and Letters from Prison.  On one occasion he writes:

The difference for the Christian hope of resurrection and a mythological hope is that the former sends man back to his life on Earth in a wholly new way which is even more sharply defined than it is in the Old Testament.  The Christians, unlike the devotees of the redemption myths, has no last line of escape available from earthly tasks and difficulties into the Eternal, but like Christ himself (my God why hast thou forsaken me?), must drink the earthly cup to the dregs, and only in his doing so is crucified and risen with Christ.  This world must not prematurely be cut off… But Christ takes hold of a man in the center of his life.[x] 

            The word prematurely should especially be noticed here.  Participation in this world is never the ultimate (but rather the penultimate) for Bonhoeffer.  However, it is necessarily required for participating in the life and sufferings of Christ, and therefore integral to discipleship (As costly-grace).  This understanding is drawn out explicitly in Ethics in Bonhoeffer’s categories of the “penultimate and ultimate.”  Dietrich goes on to say later in his Letters, “It is not the religious act that makes the Christian, but participation in the sufferings of God in the secular life,” and again, “[we] are to be caught up into the way of Jesus Christ, thus fulfilling Isaiah 53.” [xi] We see then that living in Christ involves living and suffering in the world. 

This-Worldliness as Postmodern. This-Worldliness is postmodern in that it rejects the modernist proclivity for the demystification and objectification of God.  Bonhoeffer insists upon maintain a God who is both (in the words of Barth) “Wholly Other,” and astoundingly immanent and intimate. Bonhoeffer writes:

God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, or science, has been surmounted and abolished; and the same thing has happened in philosophy and religion.  For the sake of intellectual honest, that the working hypothesis should be dropped, or as far as possible eliminated.  A scientist or physician who sets out to edify is a hybrid.

            Anxious souls will ask what room there is left for God now; and as they know no answer to the question, they condemn the whole development that has brought them to such straits.  I wrote to you before about the various emergency exits that have been contrived; and we ought to add to them the death-leap back into the Middle Ages.  But this principle of the Middle Ages is heteronomy in the form of clericalism; a return to that can be a counsel of despair, but it would be at the cost of intellectual honesty.[xii]

            Bonhoeffer here is destroying the possibility of God as a “working hypothesis.”  God as a working hypothesis means that God is forced to conform to a system or paradigm.  This, however, does not mean that God ceases to exist; for several weeks later, Bonhoeffer writes, “But all the time God still reigns in heaven… he remains the Lord of Earth, he preserves his church, constantly renewing our faith and not laying on us more than we can bear, gladdening us with his nearness and help, hearing our prayers…”[xiii]  This thought was already developed in his Act and Being when he wrote, “God is the supramundane reality transcending consciousness, the Creator and Lord.  This sentence is the unconditional requirement of Christian theology…”[xiv]  In light of such assertions, we see that Bonhoeffer’s opposition to the primacy of metaphysics does not call the Christian to accept relativism and despair, but to return to the revelation of Christ in the Bible as the only possible grounding for our being: “It is in being known by God that human beings know God.  But to be known by God means to become a new person.  It is the justified and sinner in one who knows God.  It is not because the word of God is in itself meaning that it affects the existence of human beings, but because it is God’s word.”[xv]  This acceptance of a ‘theology of revelation’ insists upon a returning to this world; for it is in our suffering in this world that we most closely identify with and enter into Christ.  Bonhoeffer’s dialectical approach comes to the fore: in one instance, he can testify, “Become weak in the world and let God be your Lord,” while later declaring in the same lecture “whoever flees the world will not find God…whoever flees the world to find God only finds himself.”[xvi]

Conclusions

            Perhaps the applicational conclusions of these concepts are overwhelmingly obvious: We see in terms of religiouslessness that to be Christian means first and foremost to be candid before Christ, to reject mere external moralisms and pietistic tendencies toted by “religion,” and instead to open ourselves to the intimate call of Christ on our lives and in the moment.  In terms of this-worldliness, we see that the Christian does not conform himself to Christ who is the perfect moral exemplar, but rather the Christian mystically enters into Christ and participates in Christ’s sufferings when he (the Christian) participates and suffers in this world.  It is through this re-entry into the world that the Christian is able to identify with Christ and therefore grow in faith.  Lastly, in terms of the postmodern leanings present in the concept of this-worldliness, we see that the Christian must insist upon Christ as the very ground for his being.  To grant primacy to anything else is to raise up an idol.

Ryan McBain for AcrossTheGap May ‘06

[i] Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 140.

[ii] Huntemann, An Evangelical Reassessment, p. 106.

[iii] Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 141.

[iv] Ibid., p. 190.

[v] Ibid, p. 141.

[vi] Kelly, The Cost of Moral Leadership, p. 42.

[vii] Ibid, p. 16-17.

[viii] Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 161.

[ix] Huntemann, An Evangelical Reassessment, p. 74.

[x] Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 176-177.

[xi] Ibid., p. 190.

[xii] Ibid., p. 187.

[xiii] Ibid., p. 205.

[xiv] Bonhoeffer, Act and Being, p. 57.

[xv] Ibid., p. 134.

[xvi] As quoted in Huntemann, An Evangelical Reassessment, p. 142.

            I believe that this is a question that all Christians have to face at one time or another.  This is especially true when it comes to defending ones own faith but that matter is a whole other animal all in itself.  Is there one universal definition as to what being Christian means or is it a personal preference?  Do we make up our own guidelines, to justify our actions?  I am not here to provide you with an answer to this question nor do I strive to persuade you into my position, but I will provide you with some words for thought, at the very least. 

            The word Christian to me means to be Christ-like.  Now does this apply to all areas and territories of our lives or just some of it?  Growing up for me was quite the experience, since I was one that was raised in the church ever since I can remember.  There have been times that living the Christian life is like living your life in a fishbowl, everyone can see what you are doing, all the time.  Kids at school, people at work knew I was Christian so they watched my every move, word spoken and action to see if I would walk the walk.  I had to constantly keep myself in check as to not let anyone down so to speak but it was also good because it kept me strong in my faith.  It was quite the battle to live up to the expectations of others.  It took me a long time to realize something about this:  When I took a look at the life of Christ, not once did he have to worry about what he said, did or anything of that matter.  He was so wrapped up in the things of God that all of his actions were pure and right.  Granted the fact that He is perfect and I am not changes the situation slightly, but, He lived up to his Fathers expectations and no ones else’s.

            As I examined my life over the years, I’ve come to think that being a Christian means being true to your self and true to God.  Christ was true to himself, he knew what he had to do, and he did it despite all of the pain and agony he went through.  No one is perfect, we all have fallen short, but because of that, it makes me need God even more.  I think that making a personal effort to become more and more Christ-like, taking one day at a time is all that you can do.  One cannot fix the past nor can one predict the future.  Taking one day at a time will keep you as busy as a one eyed cat watching two mouse holes.  Being Christian to me is living a life that I know in my heart truly pleases the Lord and trying my hardest to be Christ-like even with the knowledge that I am going to slip up.  I’m glad God is a God of mercy and is my ever present help.  As long as your have your heart in the right place, your actions will follow shortly thereafter.  Maybe the question isn’t as much of “What does it mean to be Christian?”, as it is; “Am I going to love people as Jesus loved people?”  After all, that is the greatest commandment. 

A Lengthy Introduction
            It was a good time of year.  It was summertime, classes had just ended for the semester, and I was killing a lot of time before leaving on a tour to Philadelphia by playing lots of Ultimate Frisbee.  It was on that Frisbee field that I happened to notice a girl by the name of Kim who had a pretty good toss.  After beginning to get to know one another we agreed to meet up sometime after I returned from Philadelphia.  Not long after I returned from the tour we began to visit one another frequently and within a month I wound up with a girlfriend.
            For some reason it had never occurred to me until a little while after I started to date her that she was Roman Catholic. This was quite a revelation. To me, Catholicism was the symbol of everything Christianity wasn’t supposed to be: archaic, trite, drab, and monarchial, among other things.  It wasn’t the dynamic, personal, relational, and individual never-mind ‘modern’ facet of Christianity that I’d grown up in – the Baptist/non-denominationalist movements.  I had an inkling of all these things that I just didn’t like…Roman bureaucracy…necessary works…forced church and confession, and all the rest of their ‘extra-Biblical junk’.  It occurred to me instantly that this relationship was necessarily doomed from the start.  A strong, professing Catholic hitched up with an equally strong and stubborn Protestant…it would never work.
            Despite the caution lights blaring in my head, I continued in my usual relational pattern and set course for full steam ahead.  It didn’t really matter whether or not there was an ice-berg in front of me…I assumed that I’d just deal with it when I hit it.  After all, the Titanic did just that, and it turned out fine…well, sort of.  Being a good boyfriend I attended my first Catholic Mass a few weeks later.  Looking back on it I have to admit that I went with feelings of both curiosity and trepidation.  I left an hour later with much the same feelings.  In the coming weeks my trepidation gradually wore off, but my curiosity stubbornly remained.

Discovering Difference
            Shortly after having attended that first Mass I began to topically study Catholic theology and juxtapose it to Protestant theology in my spare time, and my studies have, gradually, reached far beyond Catholicism.  Despite all my studying and gaining a plethora of knowledge, six months of studying is not very much.  Let’s be honest; people devote their entire lives to seeking the answer to what it means to be a Christian and die with more questions than answers.  In any case, the short six months that I have spent on Christian theology has taught me at least this: the Body of Christ is very diverse theologically.
            This was, of course, something I had always known.  I had spent a good amount of time studying apologetics prior to this time, so I knew there were differences.  However, for the first time I began to wonder: do they have to matter?  My answer is that they do and they don’t have to.   
            Differences do matter.  If all Christians decided today that everything was just as valid as anything else, we’d end up doing two things.  The first would be that we’d end up flushing two thousand years of legitimate and authoritative Christian thought down the toilet – which would be quite a shame to say the least.  The second is that we’d risk jettisoning truth into a relativistic oblivion – which would also be quite a shame.  I’m not sure which I fear more, but in any case, those would be two short explanations for why differences do matter.[1]
            On the other hand, I also stated that differences don’t have to matter – as much.  After having talked to a number of Christians who hailed from a wide range of theological perspectives and denominational backgrounds, I noticed that despite the many differences between them, they all had something in common: faith.

The Faces of Faith
            The faith of these individuals was different from what I had often encountered.  It wasn’t the archaic, stuffy, conformist faith that I had attributed to the Catholics nor the superficial, irreverent, or everything goes faith that I had seen so often in the Evangelical churches I’d been to.  While these people separately identified themselves with various doctrinal backgrounds and denominations, they first and foremost saw themselves as followers of Christ.  As a result they developed a very unique faith – a faith that became the hallmark of who they were as people.  I would posit that it is a genuine faith that all Christians must exhibit.
            The question is, of course, what does this faith look like?  There a several flavors of faith that it could possibly resemble.  There is historical faith – the kind of mundane faith needed to believe that a city you’ve never seen really exists or that your history book isn’t lying to you.  If we take faith to mean simple historical belief, then we have placed Jesus on the same level of acceptance that we give to our history books.  Clearly historical faith is not genuine.  Then there is temporal faith, the kind of faith that only holds strong during the good times – like my faith in the Red Sox.[2]  If we praise Jesus on Sunday morning but turn our back to Him on Monday morning at work in order to risk being viewed as ‘strange’ or ‘radical’, then have we really any faith at all?  If we invite Jesus to join us on the road trip of life, and then relegate Him to the passenger’s seat, what sort of faith is that?  We’ve reduced our Savior to mere convenience, refusing to trust Him in everything and actually let Him take over our lives.  Temporal, dualistic faith also fails to qualify as genuine.   
            So what is genuine faith?  I would posit that genuine faith is ultimately a commitment.  It is a continually renewed commitment of faith that is outpoured in a faithful commitment to heed the calls and commands that Our Lord, Jesus Christ has set before us (thus embodying the words of caution that James set before us).  Our commitment of faith drives us to read His word and teachings so that they may become embodied in the fabric of our Christian being.  Genuine faith is also a daily renewed commitment to pick up our cross out of love and adoration for our Savior and for the purposeful sacrifice of ourselves so that we may be found clothed in Him and in nothing else.[4]Through the spirit of this faith, we strive to carry out the commandment to “‘Love the Lord your God with all your soul and all your strength, and all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”  This faith is, quite obviously, a complete giving of oneself to the Lord Almighty, leaving everything behind.[6]  It is an unashamed[7], singular, and radical call and subsequent joyful commitment of obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and His commands.[8]
            This faith does not hinge upon mere historical belief in Christ and what He did nor does it abandon Him at the first hint of persecution of any form.  It is a holistic and genuine faith that becomes integrally and inextricably bound to who we are as human beings that claim to follow Christ.  Genuine faith, a committed faith, is the beginning of Christian being.  Everything else becomes ancillary.
            One does not need to possess a doctorate in theology to realize that an obedient, uncompromising, life-consuming, cross carrying, radical, and radically genuine faith ought to be the paramount characteristic, indeed the quintessential hallmark of genuine Christians worldwide in any church of any denomination that professes Christ as the Lord and Savior of humanity through His death and triumphant Resurrection.  It is upon this foundation – the foundation of genuine Christian faith – that a fully realized Christian life can begin. 
                                                                  Jeremy Lindgren for AcrossTheGap ‘06