Article VI Blog

Evangelicals In The Public Square by J. Budziszewski is a fascinating read. Dr. Budziszewski is a professor of philosophy and government at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the leading proponents of the natural law approach to Christian involvement in politics and governnance.

In this book, Dr. Budziszewski looks at "four formative voices on political thought and action" from an evangelical perspective - Carl F.H. Henry - Abraham Kuyper -Francis Schaeffer - John Howard Yoder - and analyzes how each of them fails to develop a full evangelical political philosophy. Needless to say, in Budziszewski's opinion, only a natural law approach can do so. To his credit, the book also contains responses to Budziszewski's thoughts on each of the four authors analyzed by David L. Weeks, John Bolt, William Edgar, and Ashley Woodiwiss respectively.

Regardless of the debate Budziszewski himself is holding in the book, it remains a marvelous introduction into evangelical scholarly thought on politics and political action. As such, this is likely to be the first of several posts to be done out of this book, and the books it references.

Budziszewski begins with the question "How would authentically evangelical political reflection differ from the political reflection of, say, a Marxist, a Mormon, or a Muslim?" Fascinating question I think, and one that the book never answers in detail, or comparatively. Hopefully, this blog can look at the Evangelical/Mormon comparison. That said, Budziszewski goes on to lay out the task before him:

Adequate political theory, therefore, would include at least three elements: (1) an orienting doctrine, or guide to thought, explaining the place of government in the world as a whole; (2) a practical doctrine, or guide to action, explaining in broad but practical terms how Christians should conduct themselves in the civic realm; and (3) a cultural apologetic, or guide to persuasion, explaining how to go about making specific proposals of those who share two elements plausible to those who do not.

[…]

To answer this question, we first need to know how evangelicals themselves are distinctive. Their distinctiveness does not lie in their basic theology, a fact that often comes as a surprise to evangelicals themselves.

[…]

At a minimum, then, one must would expect an evangelical political theory to be a biblically illuminated political theory. What then does the Bible teach about politics and government? As we are about to see, evangelicals have long found it difficult to approach this question honestly, and the difficulty they experience with it goes far toward explaining why, even after centuries of opportunity, evangelical political reflection leaves so much to be desired.

A fascinating set-up, is it not? It points out one of the biggest problems with evangelical political involvement. Evangelicalism, as a movement, sprang up contra to the seemingly inevitable corruption of the traditional, heavily institutionalized, denominations. And yet, that institutionalization allowed those denominations to move beyond the Bible into forming thought about things not specifically addressed therein.

What's fascinating is that Mormonism (with apologies to Lowell whose perspective is a bit different on this question) sprang up from the same basic impulse - to recover the true faith from the corruption. But Mormonism moved beyond the constant "call back to the Bible" of Evangelicalism and answered many of the questions the denominations also answered, uniquely, through an expanding canon. In theory, one could conclude that Mormons should then have a more well developed political theory than Evangelicals, yet one quite in line with Evangelical thought, since both movements are born of the same basic impulse, and same initial canon.

There is much to come from this fascinating book. But this is enough for a first blog post. Lowell, any thoughts?

Lowell: A "Marxist, a Mormon, or a Muslim?" Sounds like the beginning of a bad joke.

Seriously, it would take long post by someone with a much better background in philosophy and theology than I have to answer fully. Here's a quick attempt as a summary, using Budziszewski's three elements:

(1) an orienting doctrine, or guide to thought, explaining the place of government in the world as a whole.

Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants, part of the LDS canon, springs to mind. It's my understanding that we do not consider Section 134 the revealed word of God, but a "declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835." Paraphrasing the preamble, the section generally states that governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship; all men should uphold their governments, and owe respect and deference to the law; religious societies should not exercise civil powers; and that men are justified in defending themselves and their property. The first verse is instructive:

"We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

Beyond that fundamental statement, see the Church's long-standing directives on political neutrality, on which we've commented several times, and which this set of official statements makes clear.

(2) a practical doctrine, or guide to action, explaining in broad but practical terms how Christians should conduct themselves in the civic realm.

I refer back to the link just above. This official statement also reflects a set of "practical guides to action," in Budziszewski's words. The Church does:

"Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.

"Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.

"Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.

"Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church."

These concepts are simply part and parcel of Mormon life; they've been taught to us at all times within the memory of anyone living.

(3) a cultural apologetic, or guide to persuasion, explaining how to go about making specific proposals of those who share two elements plausible to those who do not.

Not having read Budziszewski, I'm not sure I understand what he has in mind here. If he's talking about how Mormons are asked to approach others about political matters, the response above to no. 2 covers this element as well.

Ordinarily we try to avoid doctrinal discussions here, but when we're looking for common political ground, it seems to me that the information above is very much worth posting.

Technorati Tags: political philosophy, Mormons, Evangelicals, J. Budziszewski, Carl Henry, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, John Howard Yoder, canon, Bible