Kemeny, Church, State, and Public Justice

Share this:

P. C. Kemeny, Clarke E. Cochran, Derek H. Davis, Ronald J. Sider, and Corwin Smidt, Church, State, and Public Justice: Five Views. IVP Academic, 2007.

Referenced in: Christian Political Theory, Church and State Relations

LifeandLeadership.com Summary

The value of this book is the objectivity of five scholar-practitioners as they stand back from the fray and reflect on the theological and philosophical motivations behind their work. They address the larger question of the relationship between the church and the public square, one of the factors influencing a church’s level of cultural engagement in social compassion and justice. This is especially helpful for those who are relatively new to social justice and can appreciate the passion of various authors, but would like to get their heads straight theologically and philosophically before involving themselves and their churches.

The book is divided into five major sections, each with an essay from an advocate of a perspective on the relationship between church, state, and public justice. This is followed by critical responses from the other representatives. Below is a brief summary of the five:

Catholic, represented by Clark E. Cochran

As summarized on pp. 39-43 and expounded upon in the pages that follow, Catholic Social Teaching (CST), although varied and at times factious, fairly universally describes the relationship between religion and politics as a “borderland dotted with checkpoints and hidden paths for both legitimate and illegitimate commerce.” Along this border lies a stable core of teaching “such as common good, social justice, subsidiary, stewardship, and human freedom and dignity.” But along the border there is also diversity as to how to apply these principles. Some on the left emphasize “world peace, protection of the rights of labor, government programs of assistance to the poor and needy, and economic justice.” But others on the left “reject tinkering with social life, replacing it with a vision of the church as an alternative community.” Those on the right range from those emphasizing “free enterprise and the pursuit of political freedom and economic development,” while others steer by fixed stars of “Catholic moral teaching opposing abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia.” These differences reflect the “variety of challenges presented by the political world” and the fact that the borders between church and state “are essentially messy and do not lend themselves to permanent, tidy solutions.” Cochran argues that Catholic “dealings with politics, culture and society will from time to time take on four different aspects: cooperation, challenge, competition, and transcendence.”

Cooperation refers to Catholic collaboration with government, even receiving government grants and contracts, to meet social needs in a way that manifests “the religious mission of the church.”
Challenge represents the various ways that Catholics “lobby, demonstrate, and agitate government in order to push it toward justice or correction of injustice.”
Competition refers to ways that Catholic institutions actually compete with government provisions, e.g. Catholic schools.
Transcendence signifies the mission that goes beyond any mission of the state – eternal salvation.

In addition, CST reflects on a deeper level an understanding of the Christian mission as “incarnational, sacramental, social and committed to the poor.” Also, its methodology relies on “tradition, reason and argument by analogy to set forth the universal applicability of the church’s social and moral principles. Cochran develops these principles in considerable detail.

Classical Separation (Baptist), represented by Derek H. Davis

This view is “classical” in that it seeks to capture the original intent of America’s forefathers on the relation between church and state. The view is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and the First Amendment, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Declaration underscores the freedom to believe and practice one’s religion without coercion or constraint from government. The First Amendment’s two clauses forbid the “establishment” of a state religion (e.g. Church of England) and the “free exercise” of each individual to believe “according to the dictates of his own conscience” (cf. John Locke) independent of the government.

It is not a “strict separationist” view (if such exists) as it acknowledges the important role of religion in public life. It is the nature of this public role that fuels the ongoing separationist-accommodationist debates, which Davis discusses at length. Accommodationists believe the original intent was for government to support religion as a positive right, and to encourage or even initiate it, but always on a nonpreferential basis. Classic separation, on the other hand, “holds that direct, especially financial, support of religious institutions inevitably compromises their religious mission, causes dependence on governmental support, politicizes religion and ultimately causes religion to lose its prophetic role and its ability to provide the moral foundations that the nation needs.” (86)

Davis covers the history behind the development of the phrases in the Declaration and the First Amendment. His section on “Religion’s Role in the New System” reveals that even among the framers, there was a notable secularity to the founding governmental documents. While they insured a freedom that would not be hostile to religion, they did not seek to acknowledge God, move people to faith in God, or cause citizens to obey God’s laws. In their minds, government was not derived from God but from the people. To protect the good of the people, all things, including religion, had to be subordinate to liberty. The result is neither coercion nor interference with regard to religion except as it infringes on the liberty of others. On the other hand, it was clear that these framers never anticipated a radical separation from religion, but regarded religion and piety as necessary to social order and civil government. “If the nation was not theocratic in the primary sense, it remained so in a subordinate sense.” (99) Davis then relates how these perspectives are played out in issues such as prayers at public events, the content of school curricula, and other public policies.

Reformed Principled Pluralist, represented by Corwin Smidt

This view is “reformed” due to its foundations in the Reformation leader, John Calvin, and is sometimes dubbed neo-Calvinist because of the revisions popularized by Abraham Kuyper, a late-19th/early-20th century Dutch theologian and statesman. For these reasons, it is sometimes referred to as Calvinist and Kuyperian respectively.

Smidt summarizes:

Broadly speaking, principled pluralism may be viewed as a framework of understanding that serves to explain and accept the diversity evident in public life, that recognizes different structures of authority that operate within different spheres of social life, and that provides a basis for opposing both totalitarianism and individualism in political life. Thus principled pluralism accepts the state as a social structure possessing legitimate authority within a particular domain of life, but it sees other social structures as possessing legitimate authority within other domains of human and social life. The state is one, but not the only, structure to which God has delegated authority. (127)

Principled Pluralism begins with the Genesis story that God created the world good, including “the full range of human cultures that emerge when humans act according to God’s design.” This is the “common grace” from God that all humanity shares, that while not a “saving” or “particular” grace, allows all humans to reflect truth and morality. Thus many cultural achievements of unbelievers, whether in politics, art, education, or technology, though perhaps not expressions of faith, are gifts from God nonetheless, and merit Christian cooperation. Still, everything, including the natural world, has been corrupted by evil, and must be accountable to God’s judgment and look to him for its blessing and redemption. God mediates his rule through offices or representatives on earth rather than exercising it directly, and has instituted multiple authorities and institutions. Yet, he remains ultimately sovereign. This delegated authority is never concentrated in any one person or earthly institution. Therefore no single structure – political, economic, or cultural – should dominate the others. Also, government should be religiously neutral, but not indifferent.

Smidt’s main contribution is a summation of six political principles of the Principled Pluralist viewpoint (139-153):

The vital role of communities and associations in society
The nature of the church as a faith community based on preaching (listening and proclaiming), sacramental (served by Jesus and serving others in the name of Jesus), and disciplining (shaped by God’s justice and mercy, and promoting the same among all).
The nature of the state to exercise limited powers, secure justice, and be an agent of God’s common grace.
The role of the state as an agent of God’s common, not particular, grace. The state is “not to be an agent for the propagation of religion or the securing of salvation,” but should “care for the common interests and general welfare of the people over which it has authority.” This includes to “mitigate evil in a fallen world…to sustain the created order…[and] to maintain the law and uphold justice.” (145)
The call to political engagement. God instituted government for the welfare of humankind, and it is under his sovereign watch. Yet, the political sphere needs and awaits for redemption like all else. And just as Christians are called to seek social justice (Amos 5), so they should be involved in politics. (146-147)
Political modesty, toleration, cooperation, and compromise. Christians should be cautious about claiming to speak for the Lord. This “modesty and provisionalism” strikes between two extremes. One extreme is that Christians possess the truth and therefore that the laws of the land should reflect Christian values. Our stances are not “God’s will but only responses to God’s will.” Neither should we be “weak-kneed accommodationists” that are indifferent toward all moral wrongs. The second extreme is the idea that Christians should refrain from implementing their values in the public arena so as not to impose our values on others. Because laws uphold preferred behaviors they also impose someone’s values. (147-149)

Smidt shows how these principles apply to such policies as the Charitable Choice Provision of the Welfare Reform Act (1996) and President George Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Those interested in learning more about Kuyper also be interested in Richard Mouw, Abraham Kuyper, A Short and Personal Introduction.

Evangelical Anabaptist, represented by Ronald J. Sider

This view is rooted historically in the early Reformationist rejection of the varied eleven-hundred year history of the Constantinian unity of church and state. Anabaptists countered this with the idea that the believing community, not the state, should govern the church, demanding complete freedom from the state in all matters of religion. This even included pacifism and refusal to participate in the military.

In the early going, Anabaptists were persecuted, even to the point of martyrdom. Often associated more with Mennonites, the Anabaptist perspective of separation of church and state eventually gained for respect and influence, most notably with the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution of the United States in 1791, and on to today in most countries of the world.

Today there is considerable variety among Mennonites and others who are historically influenced by Anabaptist perspectives. Most current expressions rely heavily on the writings of John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (1972) and Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom (1991). A few core ideas are widely shared. Among these is the belief that the contemporary church, like the early church, should be a highly visible community of faith whose public actions point people to the Lordship of Christ over Caesar, especially in living out the radical kingdom ethics of Jesus in areas such as marriage and divorce, economic sharing, racial relations or response to enemies. The church functions as a countercultural alternative community, emphasizing scriptural images such as sojourners, strangers, and aliens. Their alternative life shows forth a sign and foretaste of the coming messianic kingdom. Since Christ is both Lord of the church and of the universe, but only the church presently lives under his Lordship, the church should represent what Christ offers the world, showing through its life the “new world that is on its way.” (174) Thus, Anabaptists are not against culture, but like Principled Pluralists, hearken to the Genesis record that culture is a part of God’s “very good” creation and thus seek to steward and shape cultures that reflect God’s intended beauty and grace. But since sin twists culture, kingdom Christians must confront pervasive cultural evils. They do this most effectively, however, by simply being the church. When the church truly lives out Jesus’ radical call to care for the poor, love one’s enemies, reconcile differences through non-violence or non-coercive resistance, share economically, overcome ethnic hostility, observe sexual purity and marital fidelity, treat women with dignity, etc., this radically challenges the larger society. “The visible integrity and goodness of Jesus’ new community encourages the surrounding society to improve.” (174, cf. Matthew 5:13-16)

Also related is the Anabaptist rejection of ethical dualism which enjoins the Jesus’ ethic on the private or even congregational level, but affords a different set of choices (e.g. war and capital punishment) to the public or governmental sector. This dualism they believe to be the abiding effect of Constantinian church-state weakening of Jesus’ costly call of non-violence, which was universally acknowledged during the preceding four centuries of early Christianity.

Sider expounds upon these and other Anabaptist emphases such as the Pauline ecclesiology in Ephesians 2-3, the role of government and the sword via Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the Mount, the place and power of nonviolent political engagement, etc. For example, he discusses the use of Christian Peacemaking Teams that intervene nonviolently in situations of great conflict (e.g. the West Bank).

Though Sider does not spend considerable time discussing popular prophets of the Anabaptist perspective, it is clear that the Anabaptist/John Howard Yoder philosophy is the dominant influence behind current authors such as Shane Claiborne (cf. Irresistible Revolution and Jesus for President).

Social Justice, Mainline Protestant, represented by J. Philip Wogaman

This is the view that “social justice should be promoted by churches in and through public policy.” (215) This view is shared by most mainline Protestant groups belonging to the National Council of Churches or the World Council (e.g. United Methodist, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopalian, American Baptist, Evangelical Lutheran).

The social justice model advocates a large role for the state, with the idea that “everything that happens in society is an expression of the state.” (216) Thus we are inescapable participants in the state. Whether by paying taxes for governmental actions with which we agree or disagree, or by acting in ways “that help to sustain the nations institutions, including churches, we contribute to the sociocultural fabric of society and, at least indirectly, to the effectiveness of actions taken by the nation.” (216) In the same vein, we cannot retreat from the evils of the state. So the question is “whether we will be passive participants in what the state is doing or actively seeking to shape the directions of its policies toward ends we perceive to be in harmony with Christian conscience.” (216) Fortunately, democratic countries such as the United States allow such participation.

Wogaman suggests churches should participate on several levels. One is through the conveyance of a distinct Christian value system, because “anything that is actually valued by people is potentially a source of influence and therefore of political power.” (217) The Christian value system is grounded theologically in that every human being is “due” a participation in God’s intended community of the covenant. (220) Thus Christians should be socially active to insure that all peoples are adequately enabled for this participation by elevating all persons, including the poor, disabled, and unemployed, as valued members of the human race and not marginalized or excluded from their basic human rights. Securing this often means safeguarding against concentration of power in the hands of a few. Wogaman acknowledges the influence of liberation theology and Marxism in these quests, but also points out their blind spots such as forgetting the role of sin and the darkness of atheistic social structures. He believes most mainline churches prefer a regulated capitalism that provides for the social good and assists those who are left behind.

Also important is the doctrine of creation, summarized by Barth and Bonhoeffer (225-226) that the issues of one’s material existence either “facilitate life as God has intended it or get in the way.” (226) As expressed by Bonhoeffer, if “a human life is deprived of the conditions which are proper to it, then the justification of such a life by grace and faith, if it is not rendered impossible, is at least seriously impeded.” (226)

Wogaman also addresses the criticism that social justice advocates substitute social science for the gospel. He says the gospel is and should be the “normative” understanding of the good and right, but that social sciences such as sociology, anthropology, economics, and social psychology provide the “empirical” understandings of the factual realities of human existence. They “do not provide the ultimate values by which we live, but they do help illumine the factual world in which we live out the implications of the gospel.” (229) Wogaman continues by suggesting the best ways for the church to express itself on matters of social justice and the kind of issues that should claim the church’s attention.

This book, although weighty and academic, is not a difficult read, well within the grasp of the average minister. As stated above, all Christian social activists hold a view of the relationship between church and state, though few will be able to articulate it coherently. This book helps not only helps church leaders understand their view more thoroughly, but allows them to see that view within a historical framework and in relation to the larger Christian community. Among activists, there is a tendency to see their way as “the” way. Seeing how other thoughtful Christians have conceived of the church’s place in relation to politics offers both humility and enrichment. The critical responses from the other four authors balances each essay.

Either before or after reading this text, one should consult D. A. Carson, Revisiting Christ and Culture, which is a balanced look at the larger church and culture issues involved in Christian political participation. Chapters five and six are of special benefit, offering excellent overview and critique of Abraham Kuyper’s Principled Pluralism and the Evangelical Anabaptist perspectives. See Carson and others listed in the resource guide on Christian Political Theory and Church-State Relations.

From the Publisher

Abortion. Physician-assisted suicide. Same-sex marriages. Embryonic stem-cell research. Poverty. Crime. What is a faithful Christian response?

The God of the Bible is unquestionably a God of justice. Yet Christians have had their differences as to how human government and the church should bring about a just social order.

Although Christians share many deep and significant theological convictions, differences that threaten to divide them have often surrounded the matter of how the church collectively and Christians individually ought to engage the public square.

What is the mission of the church? What is the purpose of human government? How ought they to be related to each other? How should social injustice be redressed?

The five noted contributors to this volume answer these questions from within their distinctive Christian theological traditions, as well as responding to the other four positions. Through the presentations and ensuing dialogue we come to see more clearly what the differences are, where their positions overlap and why they diverge. The contributors and the positions taken include:

Clarke E. Cochran: A Catholic Perspective
Derek H. Davis: A Classical Baptist Perspective
Ronald J. Sider: An Evangelical Anabaptist Perspective
Corwin F. Smidt: A Reformed Principled Pluralist Perspective
J. Philip Wogaman: A Mainline Protestant Perspective.

This book will be instructive for anyone seeking to grasp the major Christian alternatives and desiring to pursue a faithful corporate and individual response to the social issues that face us.

About the Authors

Paul C. Kemeny (Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary; Th.M., Duke University; M.Div., Westminster Seminary) is professor of religion and humanities at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania. Kemeny has taught at Calvin College and was a research fellow at the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He belongs to the American Academy of Religion, the American Historical Association, the American Society of Church History and the Conference on Faith on History. Other books by Kemeny include Princeton in the Nation’s Service: Religious Ideals and Educational Practice, 1868-1928 (Oxford University Press, 1998) and American Church History: A Reader (coedited with Henry Warner Bowden, Abingdon Press, 1998).

Clarke E. Cochran is a professor of political science at Texas Tech University, Lubock, Texas. At Texas Tech, he teaches courses in political philosophy, religion and politics, and public policy. Cochran is very active in his community and serves on the Board of Directors of Covenant Health System, Lubbock, Texas. He has received numerous honors, including the Best Teacher Award from Pi Sigma Alpha, the AMOCO Foundation Distinguished Teaching Award, and others.

Derek H. Davis is director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

***For additional information on this resource, including reviews, click the bookstore links. Check the reference at page top or the links below for resource guides on related topics.***

See Other Resource Guides on Christian Social Ministry:

Related Ministry Resource Guides on LifeandLeadership.com:

See Resources on Over 100 Ministry Topics:

Ministry Resource Guides Index

Church and Culture, Church and State, Political Theology, Social Ministry