The Politics of Gay Marriage (Democracy)

pogoWe imagine that the Bible does not address Christians in a democracy because democracy was invented by America. Not so. Athens was a democracy (of sorts) going back to 507 BC. However, it only lasted until about 460 BC.

Rome itself was a republic, governed by a Senate, until Julius became Caesar. By the time of Jesus, Octavius (Augustus Caesar and adopted son of Julius) had established himself as absolute ruler of the Empire, and yet the Senate continued to meet and make laws — subject to the Caesar’s approval. That is, the Senate was a sham.

Before the American Revolution, various experiments in democracy may be found, including England’s Parliament and its House of Commons. Like Rome, however, the king or queen had ultimate authority, and yet in England the Parliament was given considerable power. In fact, it can be fairly argued that the United States rebelled to gain their rights as British citizens — insisting that living on the other side of the Atlantic did not deprive them of rights under the British Magna Carta, Constitution, and Bill of Rights (not to be confused with the American documents of the same names).

The American Revolution led to the US Constitution, which led to such prosperity and freedom that the US was likely the wealthiest nation in the world per capita by the end of the 18th Century. Christian Americans thought they might live to see the Millennium established, things were so good — unless you were a slave. And the “unless” part soon brought an end to such optimism.

In response to the success of the so-called American Experiment, republics were established in Latin America, France, and many other places — but many of these efforts must be judged failures. The French Revolution made atheism the official religion of France and blood filled the streets of Paris. In Latin America, the land and government was largely controlled by aristocrats, and little wealth or freedom made its way to the people. Rather, the nations revolted to serve domestic oppressors rather than foreign oppressors.

But over the years, some democratic experiments did in fact succeed, and today, we imagine democracy to be the ideal form of government — or the least undesirable. And perhaps it is, although we’ve been at it long enough to know that democracy isn’t quite the blessed state that the reign of Jesus will be. I mean, there will be no Department of Motor Vehicles or IRS in heaven.

Now, looking back to First Century Rome, it’s easy to see why the apostles didn’t bother to leave us a handbook on how to vote or run for office. The Roman republic had become a sham by NT times, and the Caesar ruled as an absolute monarch. In fact, Rome had the usual features of a military, totalitarian state — brutal suppression of revolt, government spies scattered among the people, soldiers garrisoned throughout the Empire to protect the Empire from internal rebellion, and taxes. Lots of taxes.

On the other hand, the Romans were smart despots. They granted just enough rights and citizenship to just enough people to pacify most of the populace — other than the Jews, who insisted on being ruled by a king descended from David.

So it’s easy to see how the early church thought of itself as a nation within a nation, a people in exile, alien residents, and sojourners among the Roman pagans. In fact, like the Jews, the early Christians operated much like a nation in exile. The Christians in a given city were governed by elders, just as the Jewish towns and cities were governed by elders. The Christians tried their own disputes (1 Cor 6) and exercised their own system of punishment (1 Cor 5; Matt 18).

And while they did not have a system of taxation, their free will offerings provided retirement benefits for widows (1 Tim 5), and it seems likely that many of their leaders were supported by donations. And when one Christian community, such as Jerusalem, suffered in poverty (we don’t know why), the other communities pitched in to provide financial support. They didn’t lobby the Roman Senate for relief. They were nation unto themselves, even though they also had to pay Roman taxes.

In the Fourth Century, Christianity became officially recognized under Constantine, who was also the first Christian emperor. By the end of the century, citizenship and many other rights as Romans was tied to being a Christian, making Christianity the official religion of Rome. Paganism was systematically suppressed and soon disappeared. Judaism was also suppressed, often brutally, and yet Judaism remains with us today.

When the Christians went from exile to the throne of the Empire, countless difficult questions arose as to how to govern as a society designed to be resident aliens. Well, the first thing they did was take over the pagan temples and turn them into churches. They were tired of meeting in homes — surely because their wives were tired of having clean every single week for over 300 years!

The story is beautifully told in Defending Constantine, an excellent and fascinating read. That’s a great story, but for now it’s enough to note that the church went not just from exile to freedom but to power. In Constantine, the church had the full power of the Roman state at its beck and call. Its clergymen were soon paid out of state taxes. Its decrees were often backed by the Roman army.

This led, of course, to the rise of the nominal Christian. After all, if you wanted a government job or other government benefit, you had to be baptized.

As a result, the church found itself not only in power, but able to control the culture, the arts, literally, everything. And while the church’s political power waxed and waned over the centuries, until the Reformation, the Pope was more or less the king of kings, lord of lords, over Western Europe.

The Reformation led to all sorts of changes, but Christianity continued to dominate the culture — although the shape of Christianity and its relationship to the government changed greatly in many places.

The US Constitution changed all this with the enactment of the First Amendment — formally separating church from the federal government. The federal government was prohibited from establishing a religion, that is, declaring a religion the official religion of the nation — contrary to 1400 years of European history. Most states followed suit, so that the American churches had to survive based on their members’ freewill offerings. The result was a much more robust Christianity in the former colonies than in Europe — because of less governmental support.

Ironically enough, less state support meant a stronger church, because churches that could only survive with government subsidies in Europe died in America — making room for stronger forms of the faith.

Contrary to many a sermon, the US was largely unchurched at the time of the American Revolution. Bradley Wright explains,

Two sociologists, Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, gathered these historical data, and they used them to calculate Americans’ religious adherence at ten points in time–1776,1850,1860,1870, 1890,1906, 1916, 1926,1952, and 1980. … As shown, actually very few Americans were church members during the Revolutionary era–less than 1 in 5.

The big change happened with the Second Great Awakening, in the early 1800s, the time of Charles Finney and revival meetings. During this time, adherence rates jumped to about one-third. In the late 1800s, they jumped again, to almost half of the population, and they have steadily risen to the present when almost two-thirds of the nation adheres to a religion.

Bradley R.E. Wright. Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites…and Other Lies You’ve Been Told: A Sociologist Shatters Myths From the Secular and Christian Media (Kindle Locations 397-401). Kindle Edition.

We were not by any stretch a “Christian nation.” Church membership did not hit half the population until well after the Civil War. We were, in fact,  highly secular and under the influence of French skeptics, such as Rousseau and Voltaire, as well as English Enlightenment philosophers such as Hobbes. The same Thomas Paine who campaigned for the American Revolution campaigned for the atheistic French Revolution.

The Second Great Awakening revival movement of the early 1800s produced the Restoration Movement, along with many other indigenous American denominations. And it swept millions into active Christianity — producing not only countless churches but many humanitarian reforms, such as abolitionism, humane prison and insane asylums, the founding of hundreds of colleges and private schools (before public education was even imagined in most places), hospitals, missionary societies, Bible printing societies, etc.

This is why men such as Alexander Campbell felt they might be living at the dawn of the Millennium. Democracy, cheap land, and a laissez faire economic system produced great wealth, men and women were being converted in vast numbers, and the church was actively changing society for the better in very visible ways. If only slavery weren’t such a problem …

The Civil War turned most Christian thinkers into pessimists. The loss of life, amputations, and brutality was overwhelming. And re-inventing a society without slavery was no easy matter. And yet there soon arose yet another Great Awakening, especially in the North. Billy Sunday and Dwight Moody preached to vast numbers — crowds literally in the thousands without electronic PA systems! And Ira Sankey’s hymns revolutionized worship.

The Sunday school movement began at this time. The original idea was to was educate immigrant and other poor children who had to work 6 days a week. They’d go to church on Sunday, where they were taught to read and write. But immigrants were coming from Europe so fast that the churches couldn’t keep up, and the need for a literate population was apparent.

Therefore, the nation was swept by laws requiring a free public education for children — pushed by the churches as a humanitarian measure. After all, not only would the children be educated, they’d be freed from cruel labor conditions in the factories and mills.

This was part of the so-called Social Gospel movement, in which gospel principles were used to improve the quality of life. Prohibition is another example. And like Prohibition, public education had unintended consequences. The Social Gospel movement subtly shifted from the churches to the government, from freewill offerings to taxes, from voluntary participation to governmental coercion.

Soon, the Social Gospel left the gospel behind (the First Amendment applies to governments, not churches) and it became politicized and secular. Churches largely abandoned such ambitious projects, preferring to vote for social reform rather than doing social reform in the name of Jesus and out of their own pockets.

Many important changes resulted — child labor laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Women’s Suffrage, and countless other reforms that improved working conditions and enhanced American’s quality of life — all thanks, not to God, but your preferred political party.

And so we’ve come full circle. The church is once again in exile, people look to the government as their savior, and the church has been nearly completely co-opted by the government. In fact, as often as not, it is Christians who resist needed social change — such as the end of racial discrimination — and it’s the politicians who provide it over the protests of many of Christian voters.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in The Politics of Gary Marriage, The Politics of Gay Marriage, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Politics of Gay Marriage (Democracy)

  1. Bob Brandon says:

    Some clarifications are in order. The Church is not “in exile” if that status is different from any other period of U.S. history. The kingdom is not of this world, otherwise Christians would fight to conquer. The kingdom is just fine. The American franchisees, perhaps not so much.

    And the Church has not been co-opted, either. There is wide room and opportunity for disciples to both do and be good to their neighbors and communities.

    And the whole notion of “looking to government as savior” only highlights two things: (1) the recycling of discredited political talking points, and (2) the abject failure of U.S. churches to stand for justice and mercy in society. The churches certainly helped, but the federal government ensured the Gulf coast was rebuilt after Katrina. This is not government as “savior”; the accurate term is “as ‘We The People'”.

    Furthermore, the values and priorities of Jesus have always made their way into cultural and societal values indirectly. The early church, even the early writers, exploited popular terms and concepts and utterly revamped them: words such as logos, agape, arete, and – even – euangelion were re-purposed from earlier uses supporting empire and elitism. Even in this country, from abolition to child labor to women’s suffrage to civil rights, the initiative was from the margins even within society, from derision to anger to fear to acceptance. From that acceptance has come the dyspeptic notion of government-as-savior. Not before.

    The church has always worked from inside, from affected weakness (weakness as the world understood it), to change values. Too often these values are themselves stolen for evil purposes (U.S. religious support of the war of aggression of 2003) or converted for personal gain and ambition (pretty much anything Ted Cruz is involved in). Unleashing the raw political power of partisan anger and rage (in the present day cases of LGBTQ Americans) is not a strategy based on historic and recognized Christian principles. What it is, is from the connected and factional to gain power and coercion with the support of the immature, proud, and entitled.

    What I see in your recent articles is what I see too often: even the most open-minded of those we look to for insight will resort to literalism when they are made uncomfortable. After all, the earliest Christians were dumbfounded that Samaritans and Gentiles could be worthy of the good news. After all, that’s the argumentative trick that the lawyer Paul uses in Romans 1 to remind the good Christians in ch. 2 that they lack grounds to condemn.

    I’m no theologian and have no desire to be; speculation is the sport for the young or those who won’t – as Richard Rohr might put it – embrace falling upward and engaging the second half of life.

    As for “our” churches, despite the hysteria, there is little fear of LGBTQ men and women coming to our churches if we are not inclined to welcome them for who they are. They won’t want to be there anyway, and there are increasingly more from other franchises who will welcome them. What I suspect the real fear is the loss of status, of persuasiveness, of being taken seriously.

    And, in a fallible world that values being taken seriously above all – whether 33 AD or 2016 AD, that worldly value is the most precious of all.

  2. Jay Guin says:

    Bob wrote,

    What I see in your recent articles is what I see too often: even the most open-minded of those we look to for insight will resort to literalism when they are made uncomfortable.

    You assume much. So just how uncomfortable am I around gay people? Do you seriously think that the best way to argue your case is to attack my motives?

    What I suspect the real fear is the loss of status, of persuasiveness, of being taken seriously.

    More ad hominem — and you just don’t know me well enough to say those things about me.

    Besides, the real fame and money are on the pro-gay marriage side. The guys who write those books do pretty well.

  3. Larry Cheek says:

    What I see is that the Gay communities really do not want to be associating with those who are not Gay. They see that by forcing those who do not agree with their lifestyle to be silent about their sin will allow them to feel secure in the lifestyle. They actually believe that if what they are doing can be approved by the world then God will have to accept them also. The whole movement is self centered. Approval will clear their conscience of guilt. I don’t see them fighting for the rights to perform their desires in public displays. They will still do that in private. When the quest is won then they will realize that what they have fought for really loses its appeal.
    Regardless of the extent of their actions they will not be able to modify Christs Spiritual Bride, The Spiritual Church.

  4. Christopher says:

    Wow, people…this guy (Andrew Wilson) does a great job on transgender issues:

Comments are closed.