Wise Turks and Foolish Christians

Sharing Options

Charles Colson has done a lot of good stuff, and God bless him as he continues. But among his many good works, he has recently contributed to one the central muddles of our times. He did that here.

In this Breakpoint commentary, he was responding to secular critics who are hyperventilating over the rising American theocracy — our “religion-soaked political regimes.” If they are talking about the Bush administration it might be more accurate to call it something like religion-dabbed. Now while I want to engage with what I take to be an important confusion in Colson’s thought here, let it still be said at the outset that I agree with his assessment of those secular critics who are breathing into paper bags to keep from swooning. There is no incipient American theocracy, at least not of the kind that is making them so nervous. But part of the reason that won’t happen anytime soon is that Colson does represent the evangelical mainstream on this. Here is the problem.

It shows up right near the beginning, when Colson defines a theocracy as an ecclesiocracy.

“I know of not one Christian leader, theologian, or scholar who wants to impose a theocracy — that is, the church running the state — because the notion is entirely contrary to Christian faith”

But a theocracy is rule by the god, not rule by the priests of that god. Every law system is a theocracy, inescapably, because every law system has an ultimate point of justification. The theocracy can be justified by appeal to Allah, the Father of Jesus Christ, Mammon (government by central bankers) or to Demos, the people. But all societies are theocracies somehow because man is inescapably religious. He requires that point of ultimate justification, the point past which there is no appeal. If you don’t have a Supreme Being, you will wind up with a Supreme Court.

Now someone might reply that all theocracies are functional ecclesiocracies because there is always an religious establishment on hand to interpret the words of the god (how fortunate!). There is an element of truth here, but again, this already is true of all the gods of all societies. There is nothing unique about it just because Christians are involved. Let me take that back — the unique thing is that Christians have developed the biblical idea of a governmental separation of church and state. The confusion enters when people start thinking this means the separation of God and state, or biblical morality and state, or the separation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and state.

Colson laments the times when Christians have tried to impose their values, resulting in “bloody crusades and inquisitions.” But of course, during those times in history where Christians have been guilty of outrages, it is because they weren’t imposing their values, not because they were.

And Colson goes on to allow that “on the fringes” there are a few who want to impose “actual religious values by force of law. They are called reconstructionists, or Dominionists, and they are wrong, both theologically and politically.”

But what could he possibly mean by an “actual” religious value? I want abortion outlawed because the unborn child is created in the image of God. Is that an actual religious value? I want to reject homosexual marriages because of what the Bible says about sodomy. Is that an actual religious value?

“Of course, reconstructionists, who espouses the idea of building a literal Christian society as opposed to working within the system to try to change politics . . .”

This is where the confusion occupies center stage. Colson also says that Christians “have a duty to advance the cause of justice and human good within the democratic system, as William Wilberforce did in his battle to eliminate the British slave trade.” Colson begins here by juxtaposing “building a literal Christian society” with the laudable goal of “working within the system to try to change politics.” Change politics how much? To what extent? By what standard? In his example of Wilberforce, we learn that we have a duty to advance the “cause of justice and human good.” How far do we advance them? Is there a point where we refuse to press for any more justice, or any more human good, because to do so would threaten the democratic system?

If Colson is rejecting “theocracy” because he thinks it means ten or twenty recons with twenty or forty guns, along with plans to capture the local television station and county courthouse, I am right with him. But what would happen if a future Wilberforce, working within the system, using democratic means like crazy, got a constitutional amendment to the Constitution passed that acknowledged the lordship of Christ over all the kings and presidents of the earth? Would that advance the cause of justice and human good? Or would Colson oppose it because he insists on keeping the faux-neutrality of a secular system?

Put another way, is secularism self-authenticating? Or does Colson support it because he believes that this is the system that Jesus wants us to have? If the former, then how is this not compromise with the deities of another system? If the latter, then how is this not Christian theocracy?

This is the heart of the question. Does Colson believe the god of the political process to be Demos? And that Christians may let their private faith shape and inform their political labors and voting, just so long as they don’t challenge that? Or is Christ the Lord of the political process, just like everyone and everything else?

Colson quotes Martin Luther saying how futile it would be for a Christian magistrate to try to govern a people with the gospel. But at least he didn’t use the wise Turk quote. Luther said it would be like a shepherd who should place in one fold “wolves, lions, eagles and sheep together and let them freely mingle” But this represents a confusion about Luther’s political thought — Luther was not objecting to Christians governing, but rather to Christians trying to govern with the gospel, instead of with the law.

“It’s only right that every government should embrace the gospel, for the gospel has so advanced civil authority that everybody should know how to fulfil the duties of his calling with a good conscience” (Table Talk, p. 179).

And a bit later:

“By sparing the evildoers in this way the land is filled with scoundrels. But the prince or magistrate shouldn’t be mild, for look what a sharp law the supremely gracious God gave when he declared, ‘Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death’ [Exod. 21:17]”

I mentioned Luther’s wise Turk comment a moment ago — where he said he would rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian. So would I, but because wisdom is defined by the Bible, this is saying you would rather be governed by a Turk who behaved like a Christian than a Christian who behaved like a Turk.

Not only that, but there are two other options — the wise Christian and the foolish Turk. And I am afraid that there are Christian today who say they would rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian find themselves instead governed by a foolish Turk instead of a wise Christian.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments