|
A CALL TO
ACTION
The Church and U.S. Foreign
Policymaking
by Ronald A. Johnson
Former U.S. diplomat
Graduate Student, Boston University School of Theology
ABSTRACT
U.S. foreign policymaking is
a secular exercise that cannot exclude ethical, moral and religious
dimensions. Questions abound about the role of the church in the
American political process that leads to foreign policy formation.
Some say the church should address the pertinent moral and ethical
issues; others advise leaving American strategic matters to foreign
policy experts and practitioners. This essay calls for reasoned
and authoritative church involvement in U.S. foreign policy development.
The argument derives from the aspects of politics , a
rich Christian political tradition and the church's historical
association with U.S. foreign policymaking. The paper also addresses
the modern church's hesitation to participate in foreign policy
and calls attention to some temptations inherent to political action.
INTRODUCTION
“We got him!” read the December 2003 headlines announcing the
U.S. armed forces' capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
The question is now: what do we do with him? Do we hand him over
to the International Court of Justice in The Hague , whose maximum
penalty is life in prison? Do we try him before a U.S. military
tribunal or before the newly created Iraq Governing Council, both
of which could impose the death penalty, which for many Americans
would be a more just punishment?
Before March 2003 military operations began in Iraq , clergy and
religious organizations across America considered the questions
of legitimacy and soundness of military action in the Middle East
. The pluralistic nature of the American religious landscape facilitated
an array of faith-based opinions on the appropriate course of action.
Some religious groups adamantly supported the Bush Administration's
inclination towards military force, some staunchly opposed it,
and others voiced no opinion. According to a 2003 Pew Forum on
Religion and Public Life study, 57 percent of regular religious
service attendees' clergy addressed the should-we-go-to war-in-Iraq
question – only 21 percent noted the clergy declared a position.
Religious leaders conducted denominational, ecumenical and interfaith
conferences to discuss Iraq . The conferees addressed political-ethical-theological
issues such as just and preemptive war theories, Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction and its capacity to deploy them against the
U.S., Saddam Hussein's link to Al-Qaeda and the events of 9/11,
a war's possible effects on the Middle East peace process, the
impact of unilateral action on international law and our national
character, the need for international support, and the United Nations'
post-war role. Clergy also addressed the necessity of a swift post-war
humanitarian response, religious reconciliation in Iraq , and the
appropriateness of proselytizing the Iraqi people by faith-based
aid organizations.
The ecclesial discussions engaged morally and ethically laced
foreign policy questions that have concrete, short and long term
political, military, economic and social implications. U.S. foreign
policy questions generally contain similar elements. Does the church
have a role to play in the decision-making process on Iraq and
other American foreign policy questions? Should the opinion of
the church matter to policymakers? Some say the church could address
those questions with a clear moral and ethical dimension; but it
should leave the strategic aspects to the foreign policy experts
and practitioners. Still others argue for no church role at all
in U.S. foreign policymaking — the church's cultural and ethnic
connections limit its influence to domestic social interests, such
as abortion, school prayer and gay marriage.
The purpose of this paper is to address the question of should
the American church—clergy, religious organizations, and local
parish bodies—be involved in American policymaking, actively influencing
the nature and dimension of U.S. actions and operations abroad.
My answer to that question is yes; the American church should
be an active participant in the debates surrounding U.S. foreign
policy. The nature and dynamics of the church's role must be addressed
in another paper. This essay will examine the foundations for church
involvement in the American political process that creates, implements
and evaluates foreign policy, and attempt to prompt the American
Christian community toward more effective political involvement
without the use of unethical means or aligning itself too closely
with a particular movement.
The paper will focus on the role in U.S. foreign policymaking
by the American church, which is herein defined as a collective
of Christian (Catholic and Protestant) authoritative individuals
and groups with a foundation and/or base in the United States .
The term church will be used to signify clergy, laypersons, local
parishes, denominational and ecumenical bodies, interfaith organization
with a reasonable Christian presence, and Christian-based nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs). Some informative research and critical analysis
of religion and foreign policy has been done in recent years; but
much remains undone.
SHOULD THE CHURCH BE INVOLVED?
The murderous events of September 11, 2001, and the Al-Qaeda terrorists'
spiritual motivations renewed the interest of Americans and policymakers
in religion‘s significance in the lives of people. The nation was
awakened to the reality that, contrary to conventional wisdom,
religion remains an important part of our society, whether or not
one can erect a manger scene or a Decalogue monument on public
property, or pledge “one nation under God.”
Since the awakening, clergy, scholars and the public have asked, “Why
should the church be involved in foreign policy?” My response:
Why shouldn't it? The initial question implies a lack of appreciation
for religion's present and historical place in American society.
It assumes that religion played little or no previous role in foreign
policy until September 11. Americans' crude understanding of church-state
separation likely undergirds the question of religion's foreign
policy function. Though the constitutional concept permits the
state to act independently of the church, it does not necessarily
exclude the church from a meaningful duty in state functions. I
will now defend the church's involvement in the American political
process that leads to foreign policy making from the aspects of politics ,
a strong Christian political tradition and the church's historical
association with U.S. decision-making.
Politics Demands Church Participation
The twenty-first century church must recognize and acknowledge
the state (i.e. the United States Government) as the supreme power
concerning the temporal affairs of our nation. Seventeenth century
Westphalian thought and subsequent Enlightenment granted supremacy
and sovereignty in international affairs to the nation-states.
This Western reaction to the religiously motivated wars and upheavals
that had plagued European societies relegated the church to a subordinate
role within a secular international system. The sovereign and supreme
states have since conducted international politics. Ideally nation-states
work in concert towards the good of the world through the diplomacy,
international alliances and conventions; but, realistically, each
actor is guided by prominent interests of its government and remains
accountable to its national constituency.
The state is the final arbiter of national foreign policies. Late
Vice President Hubert Humphrey said, “Foreign policy is really
domestic policy with its hat on.” This
practical view aids our understanding that America 's foreign policy
does not spring from a few isolated offices at the White House
and State Department. To the contrary, our international affairs
involve central issues for all government branches and correlate,
oftentimes directly, with affairs on the homefront. Foreign policy
is born out of the same rigorous and exhausting political process
that emits such legislation as welfare reform, tax cuts, and logging
restrictions.
J. Philip Wogaman, senior minister at Foundry United Methodist
Church in Washington , D.C. , and self-proclaimed “pastor to the
presidents,” characterizes the state as:
“society acting as a whole, with the ultimate power to compel
compliance within its own jurisdiction…when the state acts it is
with resources generated by the whole society…The power of the
state cannot be set aside by some other body within society—while
the power of every other person or group within society can be
set aside by the state.”
Consenting to Wogaman's characterization of the state, it follows
to examine how the state, or society as a whole, governs itself
to arrive at policy decisions. The United States and other free,
democratic societies use politics to construct and implement
domestic and foreign policy. The use of the term politics in
this piece does not refer to the partisan bickering and backroom-dealing
that Americans associate with the word. Politics , in
its pure form, is a necessary good that, according to Bernard Crick, “arises
from accepting the different interests and different traditions,
within a territorial unit under a common rule.” Crick,
a noted political theorist at the University of London (formerly
with the London School of Economics), provides the definition of
politics that will guide the remainder of this discussion. Politics
is “ the activity by which differing interests within a given
unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in
proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival
of the whole community .” It
is crucial to note that the political process is not tied to any
particular doctrine, but a process of discussion, in which “public
criticism is allowed in a manner conceivably effective. God is
the only being who does not need to consult; all others need politics.
Some Christians may find Wogaman's exalted view of the state and
the Enlightenment's subjugated depiction of the church distasteful.
But I recognize them as affirmation of the church's necessitated
involvement in the American political process that leads to foreign
policy creation. In order for the political system to work optimally,
all parties must articulate their positions, especially those positions
that oppose one another. “Politics needs men who will act freely…discussion
demands dialectic.” Therefore,
politics demands the church be involved in the political process
to ensure the integrity of the system.
Crick and Wogaman's definitions help to establish a political
framework from which to further examine the church's role. Though
for the past four centuries the church has occupied a relegated
position in domestic and international politics, it remains an
important member of the American society. According to Andrew Kohut,
director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,
59 percent of Americans consider religion “a very important part
of their lives.” Harvard professor
of international relations and author of Clash of Civilizations ,
Samuel Huntington, highlights that “Americans are highly religious
people, and for 87 percent of them that religion is Christianity.” These
statistics do not imply that those for whom religion is very important
use it to fix their foreign policy opinions or that all Christian
Americans speak with the same voice on international affairs. However,
James Lindsay, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the
Brookings Institute, contends that “most Americans, regardless
of their faith or whether they have a faith or not, tend to think
of foreign policy in moral terms.” The
above academic views highlight an important majority of the American
population whose spiritual leanings should not be overshadowed
by the interests of a secular society.
In the foreign policy debates, the President or National Security
Advisor speaks for the White House, the Secretaries of State and
Defense represent the diplomatic and military views respectively,
majority and minority members of Congress represent the views of
their parties and constituents, professors and academics speak
up for their schools of thought, and non-governmental organizations
represent their particular cause. Church representatives (as a
church, coalition, or faith-based NGO) have a political imperative
to voice the views and interests of their respective Christian
beliefs and constituency.
Many churchgoers are also citizens, with legislative representatives
to promote their temporal interests. However, the church is the
best-poised institution to speak to the state on behalf of the
churchgoers' moral and ethical concerns grounded in Christian spiritual
belief. Some temporal and ecclesial representatives may agree on
the issues, while all churches do not speak with one voice. This
is of little consequence to the political process. As noted earlier,
for effective politics , all voices, including that of
the church, must be heard and respected, in both consent and dissent.
Christian Tradition Sanctions Political Action
A 2,000-year tradition, not counting the centuries of adopted
Jewish history, exists to demonstrate the church's consistent political
involvement. Jesus, the founder of the Christian faith, recognized
the authority of temporal governments in His astute response to
a question regarding imperial taxes, “ Render therefore unto Caesar
the things which are Caesar 's; and unto God the things that are
God's” (Matt. 22:21 , KJV). Jesus' trial before the Roman procurator
and subsequent crucifixion for treason were actions of the state,
instigated by laws, lobbying and political calculations -- not
religious rites. Throughout the Patristic Age and under the Roman
Empire , Western Christians were a minority yet effective part
of the political process, advancing their cause through apologetics
and martyrdom.
The church's dominant rule over the Western political world beginning
in the 300s provoked centuries of debates over church involvement
in state affairs. In most cases, Christian leaders found common
ground on the necessity and authority of government. On the other
hand, they opposed each other on whether the church should lead
the government, participate in the actions of the government, or
opt out of the political system altogether. I will focus on Christian
political thought concerning participation in the action of government,
to include foreign policy.
The early church wrote volumes of materials on Christians and
political activity since the time of Christ. This survey is confined
to writers in the period following the establishment of the Holy
Roman Empire in 800 c.e. Until the French Revolution, almost a
millennium later, the church and the state jockeyed for supremacy.
I will highlight three Christian political thinkers that influenced
the church-state debate during the Middle Ages and the Reformation:
John of Paris, who advocated for the pope's (church) surrender
of primary authority for state affairs to the king (state), and
Marsilius of Padua and John Calvin, who each promoted different
levels of church involvement in political decision making.
John of Paris :
Dominican theologian John of Paris (Jean Quidort) offered a sort
of separate-but-equal doctrine to the protracted thirteenth century
quarrels between France's King Philip IV and Pope Boniface VIII.
In Royal and Papal Power he argued against papal domination
of royal powers and included ideas of communal church representation
and election, political office as public stewardship and the conformity
of political acts to law and common utility. John wrote:
“Yet though it be said that in principle the priestly is a more
dignified function than the royal, it does not follow that it is
superior in every respect. For the lesser power, the secular, does
not stand related to the greater, the spiritual…so therefore in
temporal matters the temporal power is greater than the spiritual,
and in these matters in no way subject to the spiritual since it
is not derived from it. Both take their origin immediately from
one supreme power, namely God. Hence the inferior is not subject
to the superior in all things but only in those matters in which
the supreme power has subordinated the inferior to the superior.”
John compared the royal-papal relationship to that of a head of
household and a military commander. They both mastered their respective
domains yet remained subject to a mutual supreme power. Though
it seems apparent that John of Paris could be considered an early
proponent of church-state separation, it is difficult to determine
how his relational model would have functioned in a post-Enlightenment
era. It should be noted also that Martin Luther, Father of the
Protestant Reformation, held a similar “two kingdom” view of church-state
relations.
Marsilius of Padua :
Fourteenth century physician and theologian Marsilius of Padua
(Marsiglio dei Mainardini) ushered the church further towards its
present day political position, although he was not as separationalist
as John of Paris. He proposed a closer relationship between Christian
aspirations for “this-worldly” and for “otherworldly” happiness
while according civil life a high degree of self-sufficiency and
autonomous intelligibility. Marsilius' Defensor pacis (Defender
of the Peace) invested the civil ruler with responsibility and
authority unapproachable by other parts of the state. The ruler
alone carried the responsibility for establishing and preserving
political tranquility. Marsilius proposed that the government should
prevent human excess by rationally proportioning to the other parts
their due share of power. Moreover Christ did not come into the
world to dominate men or wield temporal rule, but rather to subject
himself to the status of the present life. Christ
meant for His actual and future disciples to submit themselves
to state authority.
For Marsilius, it was “self-evident that the state is a community
established for the sake of living well” for the community members.” He
cited Aristotle's six parts or offices of the state: agricultural,
artisan, military, financial, priestly, and judicial. He
perceived the priesthood (church) as having an equal role in coordination
with the others parts to maintain political tranquility. “All nations
agreed that it was appropriate to establish the priesthood for
worship and honoring of God…to ensure the goodness of human acts
both individual and civil, on which depend almost completely the
quiet and tranquility of communities.” It
can be said that much of Marsilius' political thought is similar
to that of Crick and Wogaman.
John Calvin:
French theologian John Calvin (Jean Cauvin) implemented a reintegration
of political order and spiritual community that transformed European
church-state relations during the sixteenth century Protestant
Reformation. His influence established an integrated structure
of divinely constituted offices and powers at the church in Geneva
and constructed the civil polity from educated moral sentiment
and law, effectively transforming Luther's “two kingdoms” into
a harmony of the spiritual and temporal realms. Calvin observed
that in man, government is twofold: 1) the spiritual, trained to
piety and divine worship; 2) the civil, instructed in those duties
which, as men and citizens, we are bound to perform. These two
are always to be viewed apart from each other. People
have responsibilities to both their spiritual and temporal lives.
Wogaman similarly noted, “it is possible to belong to the faith
community and the wider civil community simultaneously and in good
faith.”
Like John and Marsilius before him, Calvin respected the authority
of the state and viewed its legal administration necessary for
civil tranquility. In Institutes of the Christian Religion ,
he held that “civil authority is…the most sacred, and by far the
most honourable, of all stations in mortal life.” He
did not view government as necessarily contrary to Christian society.
He argued that the distinction between the church and the government,
as described in the New Testament, “does not go so far as to justify
us in supposing that the whole scheme of civil government is matter
of pollution, with which Christian men have nothing to do.”
Though Calvin taught obedience to civil authorities, his primary
loyalty rested with the church. Christians, likewise, retain a
primary obedience to Jesus Christ. “In that obedience which we
hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the
exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible
with obedience to him to whose will the wishes of all kings should
be.” Calvin expressed, “The
Lord is King of kings; if civil rulers command anything against
him let us not pay the least regard to it…On this ground Daniel
denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when
he refused to obey his impious decrees.” Oxford
University theologian John Wyclif had enunciated this principle
of civil (or spiritual) disobedience some two centuries prior to
Calvin. “The clergy should respectfully accept the civil law of
secular princes to the extent that they are consonant with Holy
Scriptures; where they are not consonant with God's law, they should
take discreet steps to abolish them.”
John of Paris, Marsilius of Padua and John Calvin are but a representative
sample of the diversity of Christian political tradition that illustrates
the church's struggle with the issue of political involvement.
Though Christianity's relationship with the state has changed dramatically
through the centuries, it has maintained some level of political
activity, to include foreign policymaking, since the faith's inception
until the present.
Historical Witness to Political Involvement
Religion and the American political process that creates foreign
policy have worked together throughout our nation's history. It
is the questions surrounding the appropriateness of this religio-political
symbiosis that are new. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities,
USA and ethics professor at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service
explains the lack of recognition for religion's role as the modern
political tradition's failure to think of it “as a significant
element of policy and practice in world politics.” As
recently as the 1980s, major texts of international relations did
not address the dynamics religion and foreign policy. Hehir concluded
that neglect of the subject by the academy and U.S. foreign policy
agencies impeded the latter from establishing organizational, bureaucratic
structures to address the questions of religion and international
affairs that have gained global prominence in the last two decades.
One of the most crucial foreign policy questions in U.S. history – whether
or not to create an independent country – involved Christian influence
and government action. Similar to recent reactions to the military
conflict in Iraq , Christian denominations and their constituencies
disagreed over support for the Revolutionary War. In general, colonial
Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Catholics supported the
war and pacifist Quakers and Mennonites refused to serve in the
army. Following independence, Americans differed again over what
Puritan John Winthrop's “city upon the hill” concept meant for
the nature of America 's foreign involvement. Some promoted the
nation's international responsibility to lead the world by moral
example, while others favored direct intervention to spread American
ways. This debate over what we know today as Manifest Destiny coincided
with the second Great Awakening that energized Protestantism and
precipitated numerous theological disputes. Yet, George Washington
University history professor Leo Ribuffo argues, despite the convergence
of these two powerful movements, that “theology per se had slight
impact on the century expansionist consensus. The rhetoric of manifest
destiny exuded more Enlightenment republicanism than religious
beliefs.”
The Spanish-American War, the late nineteenth century event that
arguably led America to a twentieth century hegemony, was according
to Ribuffo, rooted in sympathy for Cuban rebels fighting for independence. Yet
even he could not deny that President William McKinley's Christian
faith and the lobbying of “bloodthirsty” Protestants influenced
the president's decision to enter the war. McKinley told Congress
in April 1898 that intervention would fulfill American aspirations
as a “Christian, peace-loving people.”
Following the victory in Cuba , the church helped to shape the
president's decision to move the U.S. towards imperialism through
occupation of the Philippines . McKinley told leaders of his own
denomination, Methodist Episcopal Church, that he had concluded – after
walking the White House halls and praying late at night – that “the
U.S. must uplift and civilize and Christianize [the Filipinos],
and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men
for whom Christ also died.” Quakers
and Unitarians opposed the action, but Catholics and evangelical
Protestants saw the prospect of new mission fields. Though secular
issues may have led the action's ratification, it is difficult
to deny the influence of Christian interests on the debate.
The Vietnam War was arguably the most significant U.S. foreign
policy issue of the 1960s. The war contained a large religious
component. Conservative Protestants that generally support military
action against Communism also saw Indochina as a ripe field for
Christian missions. Other Christian denominations, however, vehemently
opposed America 's military presence in Southeast Asia . The war
galvanized ecumenical opposition, spawned interdenominational peace
networks, and brought together (not necessarily physically) such
notables as Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Luther King, Jr., and A.J.
Muste. Religious and other anti-war groups protested America 's
war policy to each level of government throughout the country and
helped to influence the decision to withdraw.
This historical survey shows that Christianity and American foreign
policy have worked together or been at odds since the founding
of our nation. Though the combination, along with the other factors
and interests, has had mixed results, it has played an important
role in the shaping of the twenty-first century America .
A CALL TO ACTION
I have argued that the church's right and responsibility to participate
in U.S. foreign policymaking stems from 1) the nature of the American
democratic system and its governance under the political process,
which demands the church's input, 2) the Christian tradition that
recognizes the authority of the state and respects its supporting
function in realizing national order and peace, and 3) the church's
historical voice for American Christians in the country's foreign
policy debates under our valued system of church-state separation.
I will now offer suggestions as to why the church remains gun shy
about engaging American foreign policy and some advice on how to
the church can advocate effectively on behalf of the Christian
constituency.
Overcoming Post-Enlightenment Syndrome
The twenty-first century church must take its place among policy
equals and actively engage the American political process that
leads to foreign policy formation. Christianity's colored history
and tradition warrant a place in the political debates of today
and tomorrow. Why do the questions surrounding its involvement
persist inside and outside the church? Why does the church in many
ways appear hesitant to take up its ordained role in the American
political process? The church has allowed the axiom of reason over
faith to muzzle its political input and has fallen victim to what
I shall call post-Enlightenment syndrome .
The Enlightenment, some believed, sounded the death toll for the
influence of religion in general, and particularly in politics.
It was widely assumed that in the twentieth century, under the
impact of modernization, humanity would outgrow its need for religion.
Throughout the post-World War II era, conventional wisdom held
that U.S. foreign policy should avoid entanglements with religion.
Wheaton College political science professor Mark Amstutz attributes
this view to a secular realism that has de-emphasized moral reasoning
in foreign affairs. “Enlightenment prejudice” has led scholars
and decision makers to analyze international relations from [a
purely] strategic perspective.
The church, to a reasonable extent, has accepted this misguided
approach. The church's post-Enlightenment syndrome – believing
it should no longer participate in debates outside of a theological
nature, including foreign policy – has led it to either offer no
opinion on foreign policy matters or passively allow government
officials and intellectuals to dismiss its views out of hand.
But, as George Weigel, senior fellow of the Ethics and Public
Policy Center points out, “by the end of the twentieth century,
three of the four most potent culture-forming sources on the world
historical stage were Roman Catholicism, evangelical Protestantism,
and Islam.” Weigel, Amstutz
and Huntington agree, “The idea that modernization necessarily
involves secularization has been decisively falsified by empirical
evidence and by the lives of people.” Huntington
in fact sees “renaissance of religion,” in which the power and
salience of religion has increased. Politics
and religion cannot be disentangled; religion has become important
to the identity of people, government legitimacy and conflicts
between peoples.
The church and other religious organizations, then, must continue
to play a role in U.S. foreign policymaking. Weigel suggests that
we reassess the realist tradition's tendency to reduce international
politics to military and economic categories alone. It is not an
amoral realm. Moral claims and passions are important forces in
the politics of nations. The
church is well-equipped to contribute to the development and implementation
of foreign policy cognizant of political morality by promoting
moral reasoning, values and behaviors that are conducive to human
dignity worldwide.
No Foreign Policy Pulpit
The church, however, does not warrant a special hearing with policymakers
or an exalted place at the bargaining table because of its moral,
Christian revelations. Prudent foreign policy derives from the
oftentimes grinding and exhausting political process that demands
fiery, partisan, and sometimes hostile debate. Crick's definition
of politics calls for the conciliation of differing interests “by
giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance
to the welfare and the survival of the whole community.” Boston
College sociologist Patricia Y.M. Chang cautions that though religious
groups are motivated by their faith to influence government decisions, “religious
lobbies are undistinguished from any of the other special interest
group lobbies that seek to influence lawmakers. In a pluralist
society they are not barred from making their opinions known, but
neither are they given special privileges.” To
fulfill Crick's definition and overcome Chang's burden of proof,
it is incumbent upon the church to prove its mettle with foreign
policy elites and practitioners through sound, reasoned argumentation,
moral credibility, ethical validity and spiritual conviction.
Boston University ethicist James Nash sounded the call some 20
years ago of the “strategic imperative” to enhance the church's
effectiveness in dealings with U.S. policymakers. As Nash rationalized
it then, “If the church has a duty to influence the decisions of
governments, then the church has a concomitant duty to act relevantly
by willing the means necessary to achieve its political end.” It
is not enough in politics – particularly that of foreign policy – to
simply to “do something or be a “placeholder.” The church must
gear itself to actively influence policymakers; and in politics
that can often mean “speaking power to power.” Nash argued, “Fidelity
for the churches in politics is the strategic effort to succeed.”
The Church's Tempered Influence
I do not want to romanticize or overstate the case for the church's
influence in U.S. foreign policymaking. Though there are issues
where the church's influence will sway the vote, such as the 1998
International Religious Freedom Act, its role in the foreign policy
process may oftentimes be modest and indirect at best. Ribuffo's
historical analysis found that no major diplomatic decision has
turned on religious issues alone, and serious religious ideas have
had at most an indirect impact on policy makers. These
conclusions in no way diminish the church's duty or its impact.
It should not be the goal of the church to dominate the political
sphere, but rather to be an active and effective participant in
the Crickean model of politics within the U.S. democratic
system. In this way we serve the interests of Jesus, the church's
founder, and the interests of American society, of which we occupy
an important part. Our primary mission must remain that of seeking
the kingdom of heaven while living righteously on earth.
Prudent Political Action
Political participation in the foreign policy process can take
many shapes and forms, all of which can prove effective when the
proper variables exist. There are two cautionary notes to which
the church must pay heed if it is to remain an authoritative position
in both the political and ecclesial worlds. First, the church must
not engage in political practices that involve unethical measures.
Political effectiveness, while important, does not imply “by any
means necessary,” regardless of the issue at hand. Some may think
such constraints put the church at a disadvantage in the dog-eat-dog
world of politics; nevertheless, by using unethical or deceitful
trickery to garner victor, the church risks becoming just another
Beltway lobbying group and losing its identity as the institution
established by Jesus Christ to spread His Gospel.
Second, the church should, with vigor, avoid aligning itself too
closely with the U.S. government, a particular political party
or social movement. Such alliance can discredit the church's position
as the voice of the faithful and can suggest that it is a co-conspirator
or mere puppet of one party or movement. This perception (or reality)
can erode the church's authority on spiritual matters, which must
remain our principal focus. The government may be right on some
things, but it will not be right on all things. French nobleman
Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned, “When governments seem so strong
and laws so stable, men do not see the danger that religion may
run by allying itself with power.” Though
American religious factions have long since sped down this forbidden
path, it is not too late to reverse course. De Tocqueville's nineteen
century warning to American churches concerning this dangerous
modus vivendi maintains its relevance for the twenty-first century
church:
“There have been religions intimately linked to earth governments…but
when a religion makes such an alliance…it sacrifices the future
for the present, and by gaining a power to which it has no claim,
it risks its legitimate authority…by allying itself with any political
power, religion increases its strength over some but forfeits the
hope of reigning over all…When the church is mingled with the bitter
passions of this world, it is sometimes constrained to defend allies
who are such from interest rather than from love…Hence religion
cannot share the material strength of the rulers without being
burdened with some of the animosity roused against them.”
CONCLUSION
This essay calls for reasoned and authoritative church involvement
in U.S. foreign policymaking. For this level of participation,
effective techniques and strategies must be developed to fashion
the modern church as a more formidable interlocutor on foreign
policy issues. Since Nash's “ Political Feeble Church 's and the
Strategic Imperative,” two decades ago, scholars and clergy have
been slow to provide concrete methods to create and implement faith-based
political strategy. Some recent notables include Elliott Abrams' The
Influence of Faith , Doug Johnston's Faith-Based
Diplomacy , Patricia Chang and Allen Hertzke's individual
work on religious lobbying, and Mark Amstutz and Andrew Natsios'
independent studies on the faith-based NGO contributions to foreign
policy. However, much of the subject remains unexamined.
U.S. foreign policymaking is a secular exercise that cannot exclude
ethical, moral and religious dimensions. The nature of justice
given to Saddam Hussein and other issues surrounding U.S. involvement
in Iraq are central to the short and long term future of our nation's
international affairs. The church must be prepared to provide enlightened
guidance and a sound Christian perspective to policymakers. The
church must not cower in the face of these and other foreign policy
questions. It cannot yield its role in the political process to
international affairs practitioners and scholars. Rather, the church
must boldly answer the call of its Lord and its country to perform
its faithful and reasoned duty to contribute to the welfare of
the United States and to help bring peace to all of God's children.
NOTES
Address, June 29, 1966 ,
to the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce, Detroit , Michigan
.
J. Philip Wogaman, Christian
Perspectives on Politics ( Louisville : Westminster John
Knox Press, 2000); 15.
Bernard Crick, In Defence
of Politics ( London : Continuum, 2000), 18.
Ibid., 21. Also useful was
President Coolidge's view: “Politics is not an end, but a means.
It is not a product, but a process. It is the art of government.
Like other values it has its counterfeits. So much emphasis has
been placed upon the false that the significance of the true has
been obscured and politics has come to convey the meaning of crafty
and cunning selfishness, instead of candid and sincere service,” Calvin
Coolidge, Have Faith in Massachusetts (Houghton, Mifflin,
1919), ch. 12.
Crick, 22, 33.
Ibid., 33.
Statements from the conference
on “God and Foreign Policy: The Religious Divide Between the U.S.
and Europe ,” July 10, 2003 , Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, Washington , D.C.
Samuel Huntington, “Religious
Persecution and Religious Relevance in Today's World,” in The
Influence of Faith: Religious Groups & U.S. Foreign Policy ,
ed. by Elliott Abrams, ( New York : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
2001), 59.
Statements from the discussion
on “Religion and American Foreign Policy: Prophetic, Perilous,
Inevitable,” February 5, 2003 , The Brookings Institution, Washington
, D.C.
John of Paris, “Royal
and Papal Power,” 1302, in From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook
in Christian Political Thought , ed, by Oliver O'Donovan and
Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing,
1999), 401.
Marsilius of Padua, “Defensor
pacis, Discourse 2” 1324, in O'Donovan and O'Donovan, 437.
Ibid., 427.
Ibid.
Ibid., 428-429.
John Calvin, “Institutes
of the Christian Religion,” 1559, in O'Donovan and O'Donovan, 668.
Wogaman, 195.
Calvin, in O'Donovan and
O'Donovan, 671.
Ibid., 669.
Ibid., 681.
Ibid.
John Wyclif, “The King's
Office,” circa 1375, in O'Donovan and O'Donovan, 501.
Statements from the conference
on “Religion and American Foreign Policy: Prophetic, Perilous,
Inevitable,” February 5, 2003 , The Brookings Institution, Washington
, D.C.
Ibid.
Leo P. Ribuffo, “Religion
in the History of U.S. Foreign Policy,” in Abrams , 4.
Ibid., 7.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Mark R. Amstutz, “Faith-Based
NGOs and U.S. Foreign Policy,” in Abrams, 175.
George Weigel, “Comment
on Chapter 3,” in Abrams, 65.
Ibid.
Huntington , in Abrams,
58.
Ibid.
Ibid., 66.
Patricia M.Y. Chang, “Religion
and American Foreign Policy in the New Millennium,” in Islamiyat ,
June 2003, 3.
James A. Nash, “Politically
Feeble Churches and the Strategic Imperative,” in The Christian
Century, October 6, 1982 , 985.
Ribuffo, in Abrams, 20-21.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy
in America , ed. J.P. Mayer, (New York: Harper & Row,
1966), 297.
Ibid. |
