God's Politics and America's Church (UPDATED)

In a recent guest posting on Ben Myers' blog, Douglas Harink discusses God's Politics by Jim Wallis. In a nut shell, Harink's critique is that Wallis' perspective (along with the religious right's perspective) views the church as merely an instrument for America's betterment. In Harink's words,

"Unless Christian discourse about God, faith and the church is allowed in the first place to be absolutely free of its usefulness for Americanism, it will always be idolatrous."

I have not read Wallis and as such I can't responsibly comment on his views, but Harink's article is a healthy challenge to my politics. When I do my armchair political thinking, I find myself drawn to do it in the framework which seeks the strength and continuance of America as the end goal. This is not the result of a conscious decision to hold my country above my God and my church, but rather a desire to effectively engage with my surrounding society. Almost all discussion in American Politics, whether it is from the left or the right, works from the assumption that the end goal is the preservation and prosperity of America. It is not counter-intuitive to then try to make my political arguments lead to that same nationally shared goal if I want to be a part of the game. Is Harink correct in saying that the church and Christians (both Dobsonites and Willisites) in America should abandon the framework of the national discussion at the risk of losing traction in the national conversation?

I think so. The church's interest is in the proclamation of the gospel and the regeneration of the world. That calling must come before the advancement of America. When we partake in placing the betterment of America as our political goal, we place a political entity's well-being above God's commands and intentions for his people. It may be tantamount to claiming Kaisar Kurios (Caesar is Lord) instead if Xristos Kurios (Christ is Lord).

Taking Harink's position certainly runs the risk of having less influence on the direction of America as a nation-state, but the responsibility of the church is not to safeguard the state. It is to proliferate the gospel. The loss of strength for the Christian voice in the political dialogue is not a major loss because political traction only gives you a greater ability to force your agenda on others and the gospel is an agenda that cannot be forced on anyone.

Whether the state parishes or flourishes should be of little consequence to the church and the Christian. Whether the world sees the glory and love of God or not is of greatest consequence to the church and the Christian.

What are your thoughts?