Sanders, Institutions and What We're Supposed to Be About


Sanders, Institutions and What We're Supposed to Be About

Last week, two big stories about Christians and the Democratic party started circulating on social media: On one hand, a major figure in the party seemed to use an executive branch nominee's faith as a reason to vote against confirming him for work, and on the other hand a number of Christians publicly affirmed their commitment to the Democratic party.

A recent conversation with Dr. Peter Baker helps us understand how those two things might be possible at the same time.


Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power by Andy Crouch

Articles by Dr. Peter Baker

Bernie Sanders Questions Russel Vought

"Bernie Sanders' Religious Test for Christians in Public Office" from The Atlantic

Our theme music is by Sonic Weapon Fence and is used with permission.

Key image adapted from photography by Michael Vadon, used under Creative Commons 2.0.


BREAKING: A Response to Today's Violence


BREAKING: A Response to Today's Violence

In light of today's shootings, including a mass shooting just outside of DC city lines that appears to be politically motivated, we are postponing release of the next episode of our podcast and are instead inviting you to join us in prayer for the victims of these attacks and for the church around the country to make God's healing felt in the aftermath. 

We'd like to thank Rev. Glenn Hoburg, founding pastor of the Grace DC church network, for joining us and leading us in prayer on such short notice. Rev. Hoburg has ministered in DC for 14 years and supports and is known as a support and encouragement to pastors throughout the city.

If you use Google Play Music, Pocket Casts, Tune In or SoundCloud, you can subscribe to our podcast now. If you don't use one of those services, don't worry--we'll be up on the rest of the major services, including iTunes and Stitcher, soon.

If you would like to know when the next episode of our podcast is available or when we are live on all of the major podcast services, please sign up for our mailing list today. 


The Christian Civics Podcast, Episode One


The Christian Civics Podcast, Episode One

What does it mean to be holy? How can we demonstrate holiness in our civic lives? And how can we respond in a holy manner to political chaos? 

In the first episode of The Christian Civics Podcast, we'll dive into those questions, including instruction from Rev. Charles Drew, author of Body Broken: Can Republicans and Democrats Sit in the Same Pew?

Articles referenced in this episode or recommended for further reading include:

If this episode was helpful or encouraging to you, please be sure to share it with others. And look for The Christian Civics Podcast on iTunes, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher or your favorite podcast directory in two weeks!

Support Our Work

The need for thorough, thoughtful and faithful engagement with the public square is urgent, and we need your help to provide it. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider making a small donation to the Center for Christian Civics today.


Jesus, Socrates, and Historic American Understandings of "Greatness"


Jesus, Socrates, and Historic American Understandings of "Greatness"

Brian Andrew Smith is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University in New Jersey. Sarah Morgan Smith is an instructor in the Master of Arts in American History and Government (MAHG) program housed in the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University and co-director of the Ashbrook Center’s Religion in American History project.

In his Address to Congress on February 28th, President Trump offered the nation a speech replete with invocations of strength and pride. While not exactly conciliatory, the message did contain moments that aspired to be unifying, most of which were connected to the President's focus on "restoring the nation's greatness" and bolstering national pride. This was in keeping with his rhetoric as a candidate, which emphasized restoring American economic and military greatness. President Trump is far from the only politician in the US or around the world to appeal to national pride through images of military strength and economic prosperity. But one question we think Christians in the US should wrestle with in response to this is: If pride is a sin and all glory should go to God, what should we think of aspirations to political greatness? Can this kind of greatness even be truly unifying?

In some respects, President Trump's address was perfectly in line with many traditions of American political conversation. For example, presidential speeches regularly offer lofty rhetoric. So, the president's claims that, "a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp" isn't all that remarkable, nor is his declaration that, "America will be empowered by our aspirations, not burdened by your fears; inspired by the future, not bound by the failures of the past; and guided by your vision, not blinded by our doubts." Equally expected are the notes of military strength and economic dynamism, which the speech points to as essential parts of American greatness. They were a staple of Alexander Hamilton's arguments for a strong navy and vibrant commerce, and they haven't left our public rhetoric since. 

But what has been unique about President Trump's speech when compared to similar major addresses by other presidents of the 20th and 21st centuries is that he tends to not discuss America's role in the wider world, and the fact that his calls for a resurgence in national pride seem to be divorced from any discussion of national service. Yes, he boldly stated in his address that, "America is once again ready to lead," but he also couched that statement by saying that it would be a, "leadership based on [our] vital security interests."

Thus, although President Trump stands in a long line of men who have invoked the concept of national greatness as a part of our civic religion, he does so in a provocatively different way, a way that seems to dampen the echoes of Christian care for one’s neighbors that can often be heard in earlier American discussions of the moral dimensions of international statecraft. Looking at President Trump’s vision of American greatness alongside statements from his most recent predecessor (Barack Obama) and his least recent predecessor (George Washington), can help illustrate this shift.

Washington’s most important political statement, his Farewell Address, is primarily remembered for his insistence that we avoid "permanent national friendships and enmities." However, in remembering that, we often forget the nuance of this position in relation to his broader political philosophy. Before moving on to his specific policy recommendations, Washington urged his fellow citizens to remember the religious grounding of the republic: 

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government.” 

Washington understood America’s greatness—its political prosperity—to be possible because of the widespread religiosity of its people. He thought that their adherence to a set of religious virtues and beliefs would keep them from turning liberty into license. These religious sensibilities could also offer the benefit of simultaneously tempering national pride while providing a basis for a sort of charitable neighborliness between states and nations. This would prevent Americans from either arrogantly attempting to assert themselves into the business of other nations on one hand, or sliding from a stance of political independence into self-serving isolationism on the other.

Former President Obama’s first inaugural address emphasized similar ideas: 

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted—for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

In Obama’s speech, American greatness is in how it fulfills its principles, and these principles are as much about the uplifting of all mankind as they are about the realization of particular agendas.

Both Washington’s speech and Obama’s speech were parts of a tradition of presidential rhetoric that framed American greatness not as pride in nation over all else, but rather as a humble willingness to bring others into the fold of our freedom, justice and prosperity. In this way, we sometimes work out a stance toward the world that emphasizes the light we bring by example rather than one that focuses too much on our status and role against other nations. 

In his Autobiography, Benjamin Franklin famously reported his practical experiment in character improvement as a young man, along with a list of virtues he felt essential to the well-formed life. Among them, he listed temperance, industry, justice, and (perhaps surprisingly, for anyone who knows about Franklin's personality), as the last on the list, humility. To achieve the last, Franklin wrote, he would "imitate Jesus and Socrates." 

Setting aside the irony of seeking humility by attempting to model himself on such exceptional men, Franklin's advice is surreptitiously apt for our own age. Both Jesus and Socrates were viewed by history as indisputably Great Men who were not only aware of their own greatness, but who advertised it to those around them. It surely did not appear to the Pharisees that Jesus was being humble when he said, "I and the Father are one," and "N man comes to the Father but through me." Nor could the jury at Socrates' trial in Athens have been impressed by his humility when he suggested that his sentence for 'corrupting' the youth of that city be a generous pension. 

Yet these were not the statements of braggarts: They were simply statements of fact. Jesus and the Father are one. He gave up the perfection of Heaven to come to earth to live in the squalor of our broken, sinful world, all so that we might be one with the Father, too. In justice, Socrates did deserve some reward for his work orienting the minds of the young men of Athens to the true, the good, and the beautiful—but he remained a pauper, dependent on the kindness of others to feed and clothe his own children. The two men Franklin pointed to as examples of humility and virtue were each broken and poured out even to the point of death for the good of their societies—but this is only humility because we know their greatness of soul. True humility does not consist of being meek and downtrodden when you cannot be anything else; it consists of giving up the glory which is due you in order to serve and to love and to teach. 

Can America be great in this sense? Can any nation live up to that? Maybe—but it likely means not being satisfied with visions of economic nationalism and political independence. Instead, perhaps, we ought to seek ways to nudge our public identity as a nation towards the greatness of soul embodied by Jesus and Socrates, and to live and work with humility in our interactions with the world, adopting policies that lift up the weakest among us rather than exult our own already-heady status in the world.

All Americans ought to consider these claims seriously as citizens and encourage their representatives to embrace a humble approach to politics at home and abroad that nonetheless works toward justice where it can be achieved. We should actively seek to curb the excesses of pride that a deep belief in one’s nation can bring out in our character as a people by attempting to moderate the rhetoric of greatness in our own conversations and, indeed, in our expectations from governmental figures at all levels. More specifically, as Christians, it is important to recognize that humility and charity in politics may not look exactly the same as humility and charity in our everyday life, but that we can apply the same virtues in both realms. 


Our New Podcast: Episode Zero


Our New Podcast: Episode Zero

The Center for Christian Civics team is excited to announce the first release from our new podcast series. This podcast will feature interviews with insightful Christians across the political spectrum about how our faith equips us for missionary citizenship in a dynamic representative democracy. It will also be a great opportunity to share excerpts from the classes we've been hosting in churches around the country and commentary on how we might be able to respond to breaking news and major questions without conforming to the party lines we're usually offered. 

We've been working on interviews and developing ideas for episodes all spring, and before we start releasing official episodes, we wanted to give our readers, subscribers and followers a sneak peek. In this special sampler episode, we're sharing excerpts from three future segments:

First, we interview Body Politic correspondents Brian Smith and Sarah Morgan Smith about their recent article, "An Introduction to Interpreting the Constitution." Next, we bring you an excerpt from a class by Center for Christian Civics board member Rev. Charles Drew on "Turning Down the Political Heat" in our churches. Lastly, we round out the episode with part of a recent conversation on what sociology can teach us about loving our neighbors with pastor and sociologist Dr. Richard Smith.

We hope that this whets your appetite--the first full episode will be posted right here on our blog in about two weeks, and you'll be able to find the podcast on iTunes, Stitcher or your favorite podcast app in mid-June.


On the Johnson Amendment


On the Johnson Amendment

At the National Prayer Breakfast in February 2017, President Trump noted that he would stand with those who are calling for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, which allows non-profit organizations (including churches) to be stripped of their tax-exempt status if they endorse a political candidate. And, indeed, two weeks ago, the White House circulated an Executive Order on religious liberty that included instructions for the IRS to “alleviate the burden” of the Johnson Amendment on religious institutions.

Some Important Notes

It’s first important to note that this is not a the same as a repeal: The Johnson Amendment remains part of the tax code and could still be enforceable through other avenues besides the IRS taking direct punitive measures. However, this move does seem to at least indicate that for the time being, the IRS will not seek to enforce the amendment in a pro-active manner during the course of their regular operations. It’s also worth noting that the Johnson Amendment has rarely ever actually been enforced. Until now, only one organization has ever lost tax-exempt status under it, so whether this order actually changes anything is unclear.

As an organization intent on equipping the Church to engage with the public square, we are excited that a conversation is brewing about the church’s relationship to politics. How we approach government and politics is a question for Christians in a representative democracy to wrestle with together. But while we understand the many ways in which weakening or eliminating the Johnson Amendment would be a tempting proposition, we think the concern about the Johnson Amendment is misplaced, and that repealing and/or reducing the Johnson Amendment diminishes what should be best practices for addressing politics in faith communities.

Criticisms Rooted in Fear

Some critics of the Johnson Amendment say that it leaves churches vulnerable to retribution from politicians or parties whose policies are at odds with church practices. Other critics want to see the Johnson Amendment removed so that pastors and other church leaders can be explicit in their support for particular candidates for public office without fear of political reprisal. Parishioners often ask for guidance in how to vote and they want pastors to be able to answer clearly rather than dance around their opinions, have have frank conversations rather than need to find manipulative and deceptive strategies for expressing their thoughts indirectly.

And while it is true that, for the sheer joy of never having to look at one more completely one-sided “voter guide” that looks more like a partisan sample ballot, we are tempted to join such critics as they call for repeal, these criticisms are also expressions of fear, and so should be questioned. In his second letter to his disciple Timothy, Paul challenges all leaders to not make their decisions out of a spirit of fear or timidness. We are called to live out of power, love and self-discipline. Our political positions and answers to the political questions need to come from this same source. We need to deny political positions that come from a spirit that is not from God. On this and any answer with political implications, we should flee from positions developed out of a spirit of fear. Fear draws out our worst inclinations while power, love and self-discipline will always draw out our best.

Endorsements Make Mission Harder

Most congregations in the US are ministering in communities where there are a mix of political views. Even in the politically “safest” towns for one party or another, thirty or forty percent of the vote routinely goes to “the other party” and a large number of neighbors sit the election out entirely. While this kind of diversity might make for a fractious town hall meeting, it has always actually been a strength of the church. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church, he likens the church to a body with many parts and functions. Paul challenges the church at Corinth to revel in that diversity rather than fearing or resenting it.

An endorsement of a particular candidate from the pulpit (or from the stage) tells the surrounding community that your church is only a place for people who already agree with the pastor, or with most of the members. But people of shared faith can come to very different conclusions about today’s politics and still be called into community together. The Center for Christian Civics came together as leaders who love and serve the same God and as individuals with a shared faith but very different approaches to politics--at the same time! We not only believe people of different political opinions can participate in Christian community together, we believe that we can have healthier community and a better witness, both personally and corporately, in the full and open expression of our differences. We believe that churches where the congregation is politically diverse can both strengthen the congregants’ faith and strengthen their witness to their friends and neighbors.

Endorsements Accept The Present Age As It Currently Is

We are pilgrims, travellers passing through on a long walk toward a kingdom that is not of this world. Yet the same God who put us on this journey also calls us to invest in the healing and restoration of this home away from home while we are here. When we accept our culture’s terms of debate, we miss a crucial opportunity to draw a distinction between this world and the coming Kingdom. The church becomes more like the world around us rather than offering that world our God’s healing.

U.S. history is littered with the stories of Christians and Christian leaders living out a cautionary tale, slowly but surely conforming to the patterns of their party. Churches and their leaders who endorse candidates for public office deliberately make themselves vulnerable to the same plight. They eventually take on the image of the political party they support rather than helping the parties their church members belong to look more like the church.

Endorsements Hinder One of Our Greatest Apologetics: Empathy

Endorsements are binary, an all-or-nothing affair. You can explain why you made your endorsement with reservations, but in the end, you either endorse or you don’t--and candidates can either tell the world around them that they won your support or they can’t. Thus, endorsing sides in our biennial (or, in some states, annual) partisan warfare also has the unintended effect of implying to our congregations that we endorse not just a candidate, party or movement, but also the way they speak and behave. If a candidate with policies you approve of behaves poorly or exploits the growing instability, polarization and hatred in our communities, issuing an endorsement sends the message that joining them in their hatred is a small price to pay for being right.

But Christ did not say that God's Children would be known to be God’s by the “rightness” or “righteousness” of their political opinions and selections. Christ did not say that his followers would be known to be God’s by their ability to convince other people that they are right and others were wrong. And he certainly did not say that God’s Children would be known to be his children by their ability to judge everyone else who got it all wrong, or by their ability to honestly say, “Well don’t blame me--I didn’t vote for them!”

He said we would be known by our LOVE.

When we stand before our Creator and look back at our lives, including every single political position we ever took, we won’t be judged on if we were right or not. We won’t be judged on whether we were parts of the right groups or parties. Every time we seemed to do the right thing will be drowned out and rendered worthless if our actions were not saturated in love. If the Angels of Heaven sing "Hallelujahs" over the things we do, it is because we do them in ways that reflect the character of the God who is Love.

One way we can have love be more at the core of our politics is to practice empathy. Endorsements generally celebrate our allies while blanketly condemning both our opponents and those who don't feel like they have any good option in the election in question. Empathy puts ourselves in the position of those affected by our political ideologies. Empathy seeks out the stories that don’t just reinforce our political opinion but challenge it. It asks, “How does this position I hold affect other people, who are made in God’s image?” When we encounter political opposition, empathy pushes us into deeper conversation in an attempt to see the weaknesses in our approach through the eyes of our opponents. In the church, empathy gives birth to fellowship.

Endorsement Deprive Congregants of Opportunities to Grow

God has seen fit to place us in a time and place where our government is a representative democracy, a mode of government that wasn’t directly addressed in any of the biblical texts. Our democracy is made up of hundreds of millions of good but fallen people making some decisions together and supervising representatives who make other ones. We have to decide whether to take part in that process and, if so, how. Do we cast a vote? If so, for what levels of office? Which issues are you going to prioritize? And which approach to those issues makes the most sense to you? Beyond just voting, we have even more decisions to make about government: Will we sign a ballot measure? Collect signatures for it ourselves? How will we interact with our representatives between elections? Will we join a neighborhood watch? A PTA? A park restoration team? A protest?

Like every decision we make, these decisions about government and civil society need to be made with our best, prayerful wisdom, and made in light of what Christ has done for us. Our churches can equip us to work through these questions, and they can exhort us to be present and incarnated in our local communities or lay out a vision for how to witness well while maintaining separation. But issuing endorsements is a shortcut, skipping our brothers and sisters past the process of discernment. It takes away their God-given opportunity to wrestle with difficult questions together, to sharpen one another as iron sharpens iron.

Endorsements Downplay Responsibility

Every American has the opportunity to participate in a democratic experiment that is unique in human history. Unfortunately, too many of us think that our opportunities for civic responsibility begin and end on Tuesdays in November. For this experiment to work--perhaps even work well--far more is called for by citizens. Citizenship is a high calling with which we need to wrestle like Jacob wrestled God on the side of the Jordan River. It should be a question we raise each and every day as we ask, “What is my role in my community, my country?” Our God given responsibility of citizenship should lead us to hours of research, both in Scripture and in the world. It should lead us to seek out stories of those affected or who will be affected by a political proposal or idea. It should drive us toward more discussion and dialogue as we seek to understand and persuade. That is what citizenship looks like as it is nurtured. Ceding our decision-making responsibilities to someone else is citizenship neglected.

Citizenship hard. Politics is challenging to figure out on your own, let alone work through together. But it’s not an accident that we were placed in a country that vests us with these opportunities. Handling them well is an expression of our identities as disciples of Christ. And discipleship, sanctification of our hearts and minds, was never promised to be easy.  


A Letter From Our Assignment Editor


A Letter From Our Assignment Editor

Andrew Whitworth is the Assignment Editor for The Body Politic, where he works with bother regular and guest writers to develop article ideas and bring their articles from first draft to final draft.

Dear Reader,

The public square is a crowded place these days. As the internet and social media continue to change how we all engage in public conversation, it can be easy to feel lost among many voices. Here at the Center for Christian Civics, we don't want to simply produce more content for consumption--but we do think that there is a need for a church-focused forum for talking about politics and our civic responsibilities as Christians.

Where Does CXC Fit Into the Conversation?

There are many great organizations doing work in the sphere of politics and civic engagement. Whether they are think-tanks, media organizations or advocacy groups, most of them are outward-facing institutions. CXC is unique in that our primary audience is the church. We believe that politics, public life and civic engagement are matters of discipleship and vital work of the local church.

But too often, we don't have a theology of public life that's robust enough to support the scope of our passion or commitment. Too often, the vacuum left by the lack of a political theology has left room for idols like nationalism, race and identity politics to capture our imaginations. Our spiritual formation and witness has suffered because of this. We hope to engage Christians of all cultures and traditions, seeking justice and bridging divisions both inside and outside the walls of the church.

The question for Christians in a representative government is not whether we need to engage with the public square or not, but how. Even when the course forward is listening rather than speaking and learning rather than leading, it is not the route of disengagement. The simple command to love our neighbors as ourselves requires us to engage.

What is needed now is a reimagined Christian political witness and we here at the Center for Christian Civics hope to provide resources and equip Christians, both individuals and communities, toward this goal.

What Can You Expect From Us?

One of the ways we want to work towards this goal of equipping Christians is through this blog, The Body Politic. We hope this can be a forum that brings together a diverse set of Christian voices and readers to engage with what it means to live faithfully in our political callings and responsibilities.

We will run pieces covering three general areas: First, we will have regular articles covering civic education. How does our political system work? How has the way our government works changed over time? What can our country's history teach us about our present political moment? Second, we will have pieces focused on questions of political theology and spiritual formation. What does following Jesus have to do with politics? In what ways is the gospel political? How do Christians engage a pluralistic society with our exclusive faith? How do churches minister to those who work in government and politics? What role does the church play in political community?

And third, we will have pieces from Christians sharing personal stories of political engagement, hopefully helping bridge the gap between the "out there" work of politics and the "right here" work of our daily, common life. These pieces will come from congressional staffers, policy advocates, political scientists, community activists and private citizens across the political spectrum.

What We Hope for The Body Politic

We hope that this would become a community of folks working through these questions together. As the body of Christ, we recognize that iron sharpens iron and we have much to learn from one another. We hope that the readers and writers in this space will feel supported to do this work in their local churches and communities.

Our church communities have the opportunity to demonstrate the reconciling power of the gospel to our neighbors and our nation in a time when it is desperately needed. We hope that this space would be one that combats polarization and increases empathy and understanding. It is difficult to imagine this, given the deep fractures of our communities, but we think this is the only way forward. By having these conversations together, we hope to model different points of view in fellowship with one another.

At the same time, we want this space to b e one of learning and growth. We want this outlet to be challenging. We will not avoid conflict or difficult topics and we understand that civility is not always our end goal. We hope that by engaging with both humility and conviction, and with special effort to listen to people we might normally dismiss or ignore, that we will enter into the work of the Spirit to be formed more in the likeness of Jesus, even in our politics.

We want this blog to be collaborative, so please reach out to us with any questions, comments or ideas! Thank you for reading.

"Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen."

Andrew Whitworth
Assignment Editior


Spiritual Mistakes That Can Lead to Political Problems

1 Comment

Spiritual Mistakes That Can Lead to Political Problems

Rick Barry is Executive Director of the Center for Christian Civics. He has worked on campaigns for local, state and federal office, is a former writer and editor for Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and also currently oversees communications for the Grace DC church network in Washington, DC.

For a generation or more, a lot of people like me—that is, Christians who, whether we use the term or not, fit into the broad category of “evangelical”—assumed that the best way our ancient faith could speak to our modern politics was through the framework of culture war. The thinking was that, because our political process was mainly divided into two opposing camps, the way to engage politics was to endorse one camp and work with them against the other.

This approach offered the church real benefits. It provided a frame of reference through which Christians could begin the daunting task of becoming politically informed. It also meant that we could look to our partisan allies as clear-cut, easy-to-follow models for how to practice civic engagement. There was no need to reinvent the wheel—we could just join in the kinds of rallies, protests and campaigning that were already happening. Eventually, advocacy groups like Family Research Council (on the right) and SoJourners (on the left) emerged, giving us versions of these practices that even used explicitly Christian vocabularies.

But the culture war approach also has real shortcomings that compromise our prophetic witness to the public square. By “choosing sides” in a dualistic, zero-sum, either/or battle, we became likely to assume a one-to-one correlation between our partisan allies and our community of faith: In a single week in 2004, I was told at two different Bible study meetings, “Christians really shouldn’t vote Republican,” and, “You can’t be a Christian and vote for a Democrat.” This makes it hard for people who don’t share our faith to understand that our faith is something that transcends our politics.

We also frequently fail to properly contend with the fact that our political system’s moral frameworks are not as nuanced as our faith’s. Christianity generally claims that people are good but fallen, simultaneously reflecting and distorting God’s image. But our partisan process is prone to something akin to Manichaeism, treating one side as pure good and the other as pure ill. Too often, in our efforts to win, we turn blind eyes to our allies’ ills while willfully discounting the ways in which our opponents might be good.

As Americans who want our faith in Christ to shape every dimension of our lives in ways that are both challenging and attractive to the non-Christians around us, we have to strive for a more robust understanding of politics and government while elected officials and political operatives try to keep us satisfied with thin, self-serving narratives. One of the first things we will need to do as we begin to embark upon this project together is to consider some of the spiritual fallacies (many churches call them “idolatries”) that led us to the traps of the culture wars in the first place. I’d like to point out four especially pernicious ones that have wreaked havoc on our witness in the civic square.

Four Idolatries

The first is tribalism, the tendency to award excessive loyalty and trust to people who are like ourselves. It leaves us more likely to believe a lie from an ally than a truth from an opponent. Tribalism also leads us to excuse or explain away the failings of people who are “on our team” while tenaciously attacking the same failings in people on “the other side:” Democrats were sure that Mark Sanford’s adultery scandal proved that there was something rotten or hypocritical at the heart of the Republican party; Republicans refused to believe that Anthony Weiner’s sexting scandal was just an outlier among Democrats.

The next is triumphalism, an implicit belief that everyone’s flourishing and well-being depends on my candidate getting elected or on my party’s success. Triumphalism tends to ignore the fact that we are all fallen, even our partisan allies, and that our wisdom and perspective is limited. Our faith teaches us that the fall had noetic effects, that we only see the world “through a glass dimly.” Yet triumphalism convinces us of the lie that our approach to politics accounts for every eventuality, that there’s no possible way circumstances might be different from what we expect. People with different ideas, different perspectives or even more recent information aren’t to be trusted, and they aren’t loyal opposition—they’re either accidentally ignorant or willfully malicious. Triumphalism replaces conversation with debate, and it replaces collaboration with either victory or defeat. Even more frighteningly, our claims that a better kingdom is coming are made less credible if we seem to think that ultimate good can be achieved with political victory here and now.

Third, we have to confront our latent monarchism, our impulse to forget that we already have a Good and Gracious King. The Old Testament tells the story of Israel rejecting God’s federal headship and demanding that he provide them with “a king like all the other nations.” The New Testament claims that Jesus fills the role of King himself. And today, Christians in the US find themselves placed by God in a country whose government is designed to stymie anyone who aspires to kingly authority. It’s natural and good to want wise, upstanding stewardship of government, but we must guard ourselves against indulging a concept of government that views our elected officials as monarchs and gives them the responsibilities God entrusted to us when he placed us here. Knowing that Jesus lives and reigns should make us more active in our communities as his hands and feet, less likely to leave anyone alone with the burden of promoting flourishing in our cities and towns.

Lastly we must guard against cynicism. The Christian Left and the Christian Right were never the church’s only factions in the culture wars. There were some conscientious objectors, dissatisfied with both options and holding out hope for a morally purer one. And there were the cynics, who thought the whole civic system was morally corrupting, or that the political and governmental dimensions of life were somehow beyond the scope of God’s love. If we become uncomfortable in our partisan camps, most of us will be tempted to either switch sides (where we would still deal with tribalism, triumphalism and monarchism) or throw our lot in with the cynics and withdraw from civic engagement altogether.

To categorically withdraw from engaging with the civic arena means passing up the opportunity to make the meaning of the gospel visible to people who don't yet know it. The Christian faith is a missionary faith. Adherents are implicated in God’s mission of making his light and goodness felt in every corner of the world. We’re not called to stay in our enclaves, hoping that the people who would most relish Jesus’ freedom and comfort find their way to us. From Abraham through Moses to the apostles, the story of our faith is the story of people being charged by God to go into unexpected places and demonstrate the difference he makes in their lives. Cynicism looks at the public square and says that the Christian faith has nothing to offer it. It looks with condescension at people who ask questions at town hall meetings or who ask to meet with their state representative’s staffers or who try to understand how the decisions of the local school board affect their neighbors.

These four idolatries aren’t just bad discipleship—they are also bad citizenship. Our political system was built to work best when the people who most directly steer the machine of government are supervised by and responsible toward an active and engaged citizenry. God placed us in a country that is designed to function best when it doesn't have a king or an aristocracy running things, that implicates its citizens in selecting and firing or re-hiring government officials, that forces those officials to work productively with colleagues who disagree with them. As we think about what the prophet Jeremiah’s command to seek the well-being of the society into which God has called us means, we can’t ignore the civic mechanisms of that society or how they are structured.

Want More?

Are you interested in learning more about the idolatries that make it hard to witness to people who disagree with you? Consider supporting our work. Your donations help us produce articles, classes and Bible study guides that equip Christians for discipleship and witness in the public square. 

1 Comment

Audio Recording: April 2017 Prayer Call with Dr. Richard Smith


Audio Recording: April 2017 Prayer Call with Dr. Richard Smith

Our April 2017 prayer call covered a range of topics, including how to exercise our citizenship with wisdom and preparing our hearts for witness in militarily unstable times.

We also welcomed special guest Dr. Richard M. Smith to the call. Dr. Smith is pastor of Oakland Mills Church of God in Columbia, MD, and associate professor of sociology at McDaniel College.


Some of the Questions Christians in the U.S. Should Consider about Syria


Some of the Questions Christians in the U.S. Should Consider about Syria

This is the third in a series of articles covering the United States' recent bombing of a Syrian military airbase.

Since the White House announced Thursday night that the U.S. had launched missile strikes against a Syrian military air base, our airwaves and newsfeeds have been clogged with reports and articles attempting to explain the situation and editorials and jeremiads attempting to ensure you react to the situation in a particular way.

Because Christians should be people who honor the image of God even in people who make decisions we disagree with, and who recognize that the fall means we don’t reason and argue with perfect moral clarity, we want to take a few minutes to offer a few questions to ask as you form your reactions to this week’s events.

When is force justified? What are acceptable reasons for the U.S. to use its military?

Scripture concedes that governments have the power of the sword, but it is up to rulers and those in authority to wield that power justly--which means that when we vote and when we interact with our elected representatives, each citizen in the U.S. has to think about how we want to see our military force used.

For many Christians, the command to be peacemakers and to beat swords into ploughshares, as well as Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in Gethsemane, all read as a call to pacifism, and giving our consent to any use of force seems sinful. To others, Jesus’ warning that his disciples will need to carry their swords with them when they travel after his death muddies the waters, leading to the conclusion that, while we shouldn’t seek out opportunities to use force, we should be willing to use it in some circumstances. (This has led to an entire branch of political philosophy in the church called Just War Theory.)

If you believe that Christians should be willing to condone the use of violence in some circumstances, what are the circumstances in which you are comfortable seeing the U.S. military used? Strictly for defense against threats to the homeland? For defense of U.S. citizens overseas? Would it ever be acceptable to use force against potential threats that haven’t yet developed? If so, when? Should force be a tool of diplomacy, used to protect our country’s strategic interests or advance our goals? How willing should we be to enter into conflicts that don’t already directly involve U.S. populations but seem to be blatantly unjust?

Christians of good faith can likely have a number of different answers to the above (and below) questions, but part of maintaining a faithful presence in our country is demonstrating that we take the responsibilities of citizenship seriously. We were entrusted with them by God when he put us in this time and place, and we want to work them out the same way we do anything else in our lives--in light of the love and mercy that he has shown us.

Why did this operation take place? What is our official policy on the Syrian civil war and why?

In the hours following the military strike, two different narratives began to be shared about why the President decided to deploy this strike, both coming from official sources making public statements:

The first was that the use of force was a direct response to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons, which are banned by international law. If this is the case, then the strike was an effort to contain the use of these weapons and curtail their expansion, ensuring that what happens in Syria doesn’t become a threat to the U.S.

The second was that the President was moved by the images he saw of the aftermath of the attacks, particularly the photos and videos he saw of injured children. This could be the case. But, given that the public has deeply mixed levels of trust in the President’s ability to safely manage military strikes, this could also be an attempt to justify the attacks in a way that appeals to more people’s sympathies.

Either way, it raises major questions about our federal government’s current approach to the use of force and the Syrian civil war. This use of chemical weapons was not substantively different from earlier attacks in Syria, most notably the attacks in Ghouta in 2013. In response to those attacks our current President repeatedly said that any U.S. military intervention in Syria would be a mistake. If this is exactly the kind of horror that has marked the Syrian civil war for years, what has changed about the circumstances on the ground to make a U.S. airstrike less of a mistake in President Trump’s estimation than it would have been in 2013? If the circumstances haven’t changed, what has changed about his understanding of them? If neither of those things have changed, then what are the strategic goals and moral or philosophical guidelines shaping the decisions about how our country uses force?

Were non-violent actions available?

Even in the Just War tradition of Christian thought, military action is to only be pursued after all other options have been exhausted. In this situation, can you think of other ways our country could have pursued our goals without using violence?

How much power to command violence am I comfortable with one person having?

As we’ve already explored together this weekend, the rules governing the President’s obligations to Congress where military actions are concerned have been in flux in recent generations, and whatever balance is struck by the laws at any given time is also subject to whether the President or Congress are actually willing to exercise their rights over one another. Given that all people are fallen and prone to errors, are you more comfortable when Congress exercises its rights to set limits on the duration of military activities, trusting that the relevant committees can provide another set of eyes to check the President’s blind spots? Or do you think that the value of being able to make decisions quickly and freely as circumstances change is too important to leave military strategy subject to review?

Who is my neighbor and what is my responsibility to them?

International politics is incredibly complicated, and its problems are often difficult to understand even for people who spend their whole lives studying them. For those of us who don’t spend our lives thinking about these things, trying to develop a deep enough understanding about them to be sure that we know the best moves for our country to make can be overwhelming.

Reframing some of these conversations can probably be helpful. While we might not be able to explain the precarious dynamics between factions in the Syrian conflict and how each faction's success or failure impacts U.S. interests, we do know that the Lord commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. When we approach the questions raised by the Syrian conflict, we can approach them with this guiding question in mind: Who is my neighbor and what is my responsibility to them?

What does loving our neighbor lead us to do, to stand for? Certainly this includes what we expect of our federal government, but it also goes far beyond that. We are implicated in the command to love our neighbors not just as a country but also as individuals. Our posture in conversations about national and international issues should always reflect our primary commitment to love God and to love our neighbors.

To what degree am I willing to take part in healing the wounds this conflict has caused?

Even if Christians support military action in Syria, we cannot be satisfied with only military action. Our responsibility to love our neighbors, even those on the other side of the globe, demands something more of us. Who is doing good work on the ground and how can Christians be supporting them--whether it is through the U.S. government, through our churches or through our actions as private citizens? What moral responsibilities does the U.S. have to support the Syrian people? In a fallen world, Christians can not take for granted that our government officials have righteous motivations, especially in a country where citizens have the responsibility of oversight! What pressures need to be put on Congress and the present administration to act with moral concerns of justice rather than simply pragmatic self-interest?

Does this change the way I think about the debate over refugees?

As mentioned above, this week’s use of chemical weapons was nothing new in the Syrian civil war. Many people who were advocating for the U.S. to offer sanctuary to more Syrian refugees pointed to the fact that potential refugees had already had to live within that violence for years while the background check process took place. But the debate over military intervention has helped many of our fellow citizens understand the nature and degree of violence taking place there with new clarity. If you are comfortable using our country’s military strength and military resources to try to curb the horrors being inflicted on Syrians, are you also comfortable using our country to provide shelter or hospitality to those who are trying to flee the violence? Why or why not?


A Longer Look at Syria and War Powers


A Longer Look at Syria and War Powers

This is the second in a series of articles covering the United States' recent bombing of a Syrian military airbase. This article provides a deeper look at the Syrian civil war and similar military interventions in U.S. history.

Louis Evans is a writer living and working in San Francisco. You can read some more of his political commentary at He likes explaining stuff.

Last night, the U.S. Navy launched 59 cruise missiles at Shayrat Airfield in Syria. Here’s a summary of the Syrian Civil War, the nature of the attack, the U.S.’s response, and its status under American law.

The Basics

  • The Syrian Civil War The Syrian Civil War began on March 15, 2011. The major factions are:
    • The Assad Regime (aka the Syrian Government) In power in Syria since the late 60s/early 70s (depending on how you count). Ba’athist and dictatorial. Hasn’t held (legitimate) elections in decades. Currently led by Bashar al-Assad and supported by Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.
    • The Syrian Opposition (aka the rebels) A wide range of armed opposition groups within Syria, including army defectors, Islamist groups (inc. a rebranded, disaffiliated former al Qaeda subsidiary), and others. Hard to talk about as a unit, because their number is always changing and the power and alliances between them is constantly shifting. Supported by Turkey, and allegedly by the U.S.
    • ISIS (aka ISIL) An Islamist quasi-state organization holding territory in Iraq and Syria. Theocratic and oppressive. Wildly unpopular with everyone. Plays no (direct) role in this story.
    • Rojava A de facto autonomous region in northern Syria. The Syrian slice of Kurdistan—a proposed nation of Kurds, an ethnic group found in Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Its army is the SDF, which is in turn mostly composed of the YPG, a Kurdish militia. Supported by the US. Plays no (direct) role in this story.
  • Chemical Weapons Chemical weapons are banned by the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty agreed upon by 140 countries. They’re banned because, one, their effects are horrifying, and two, they are especially likely to harm civilians and cause lasting damage to the environment. They were widely used in World War I, but since the Geneva Protocol was signed, European nations have largely not used chemical warfare on one another (though they have been used in a range of other conflicts).
  • Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Civil War There have been over 60 instances of reported chemical attacks in the Syrian Civil War. The most notable attack was the Ghouta attacks of August 21, 2013, in which several hundred to near two thousand people were killed with sarin gas. Opposition forces blamed the Assad regime, which stockpiles these particular weapons; the Assad regime blamed the rebels. This incident led the Obama administration to ask Congress to approve military action in Syria. Before Congress could come to a decision,, the Assad regime struck a deal with Russia and the US to turn over its weapons, and President Obama did not deploy military forces against Syria.
  • The Khan Shaykhun Chemical Attack On April 4th, 2017, Khan Shaykhun, a town controlled by Tahrir al-Sham, an Islamic Opposition group with clear ties to al Queda, was hit with an airstrike, followed by extensive chemical effects. The nerve gas killed dozens and wounded hundreds, including civilians and children. If confirmed, this attack would be the deadliest chemical attack in Syria since the Ghouta attacks described above. The Syrian government denied responsibility for the attack, and Russia agrees, but the claims are not regarded as credible.
  • The American Retaliation On April 6th, the US launched 59 Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Shayrat Airfield, a Syrian military facility where the US believes the chemical weapons originated. (The Tomahawk missile is bigger than what you probably think of when you think of “missile”: it weighs about half as much as an entire WWII fighter plane and is more like an entire bomber that you don’t need to pick up after you use it. It has been a favored weapon for American presidents who wish to punish another leader without escalating into full-scale war since the early 90s.)

The Law, or, Can We Do That?

This is a very tricky question. Scholars, Congress, and the President all have different opinions about what decisions the President can make on his own, and there is no clear authority to judge between them. When it comes to rules guiding how countries can behave when they attack one another, the U.S. Constitution (and most of international law) tends to assume that military conflicts happen in declared wars, where the countries involved have officially announced their intentions to wage war upon one another. In a declared war, the separation of powers under the Constitution is clear: Congress holds the power to declare war; the President, as Commander in Chief of the military, has the power to lead the military in the war that Congress declared.

However, ever since President Adams’s Quasi-War with France (which came with its own Congressional resolution), American Presidents have found ways to commit military forces without formal declarations of war (often with legally questionable justifications). In fact, the U.S. has not declared war since 1942: We entered the Korean War through a U.N. resolution, the Vietnam War as part of Congress’ Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and so on.

In 1969, President Nixon began secretly bombing Cambodia—which is insane, when you think about it. The U.S. Air Force bombed a country and the President just . . . didn’t tell anyone. In response, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. According to the 1973 law, the President must consult with Congress before deploying forces, report to Congress when forces are deployed, begin withdrawing forces within sixty days if Congress does not pass a resolution authorizing them, and remove them if Congress so directs.

Since the War Powers Resolution went into effect, Presidents have submitted well over a hundred reports to Congress, but, it’s not clear how effective the War Powers Resolution has actually been. When Reagan struck a compromise with Congressional leaders to affirm an eighteen-month stay for marines in Lebanon, he asserted that he was simply recognizing his power as Commander in Chief. President Clinton kept U.S. troops in Somalia for nearly a year longer than the deadline Congress attempted to set for them, and continued bombing Kosovo for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline, with only shaky legal justification. And whether the authority the War Powers Resolution grants Congress to require the president to withdraw troops is even Constitutional is actually an open question: courts typically try to avoid weighing in on the relationship between Congress and the President.

Many of these issues came to a head in 2011, when the U.S. took part in a NATO bombing campaign against the Libyan government for well over sixty days without Congressional approval. The President claimed that this use of force was too small and indirect to be covered by the War Powers Resolution. Some of the President’s lawyers, along with several members of Congress, disagreed. Congress ultimately passed a resolution asserting that it had the power to order the U.S. to withdraw—but then it didn’t actually try to exercise that power! Because Congress never actually tried to get the President to cease participating in the bombing, we have no idea whether a President would actually listen to Congress in a situation like that, or what would happen if a President didn’t.

What does all this mean for President Trump’s actions in Syria?

The law outlining and constraining the President’s powers in cases like this is both indeterminate and dynamic. And while previous Presidents have taken steps that were, at the time, unprecedented, this administration’s actions represent a step beyond those of previous presidents. President Trump has no declaration of war, and no specific Congressional resolution authorizing force against the Assad regime. He is not protecting U.S. soldiers or citizens, or responding to an attack upon them. He is not acting in accordance with a U.N. resolution, or NATO commitment. But past experience suggests that he probably won't face any kind of practical consequences for acting out of accord with earlier precedents. Right now, Republican Senators are split.

Some Shameless Editorializing from the Author

To me, the true lesson of the war powers debate is that we don’t have laws as much as we make laws. The war powers precedents have emerged not from an official document but from particular crises. The President and Congress negotiate and they press their relative advantages. But in a democracy, all of us play a role in every decision of state—and so we play a role in every precedent laid down, in every choice that establishes the future shape of American war powers.

What do I want for my country? What do we all want for our nation? The choice in Syria is crushing; all of the options have their own bitter consequences. And the choice in general is yet harder. Is America the world’s police? How can we square a commitment to peace with a commitment to protect the vulnerable? When the leader of a nation poisons his people, what should we do?


Introduction to Syria and War Powers


Introduction to Syria and War Powers

This is the first in a series of articles covering the United States' recent bombing of a Syrian military airbase. This article provides a quick overview of Friday's events and the questions we'll be exploring throughout the weekend.

Brian Andrew Smith is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University in New Jersey and a regular correspondent for The Body Politic.

Becoming President tends to change politicians’ opinions about how to use force: George W. Bush campaigned on a heavily domestic platform that rejected the kind of military-led humanitarian action that marked the Clinton years, yet as President he was an active proponent of eliminating hostile regimes. Candidate Barack Obama promised a systematic move away from the use of force, yet he is likely to be remembered in military history as the President that firmly established targeted killing as a permanent tool of U.S. statecraft. As a candidate for President, Donald Trump made the case that while the tragedy in Syria is largely of our making, he would not take it upon himself to challenge the Assad regime. Assad’s use of sarin—particularly horrific nerve gas—against civilians changed this.

Having so much power and authority to act independently, the President of the United States faces enormous pressure to act immediately when crises present themselves. This is true in every area of our political life, but our current political climate, the laws governing how our country uses force and the practical realities of governing makes the presidential authority in military affairs near-absolute in the hours following a crisis.

The last sixteen years have seen a dramatic expansion of presidential war powers. Officially, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 offers a bulwark against hasty commitment of American forces. According to the resolution, the president must notify Congress of any U.S. military action within 48 hours, and requires explicit congressional authorization for actions longer than sixty days. In practice, it creates a situation where Congress is always reacting to presidential decisions after the fact. The blanket Authorization of Military Force against the perpetrators of 9/11 has muddied the waters even further by affording the executive branch an ongoing justification for individual, one-time uses of force around the world.

Many will debate whether there is direct precedent for the U.S. to respond to an attack by a foreign government on its own civilians. Given the sheer scope of U.S. activity worldwide, it is hard to imagine that from time to time U.S. forces have not quietly engaged in uses of force to protect civilians. Yesterday’s response in Syria probably deserves some credit for its proportionality: Because it was launched overnight, it killed very few people. Moreover, unlike some other acts of U.S. retaliation, it was a direct attack on the very airfield from which Assad’s chemical weapons attack originated.

The administration has stated that this was a one-time response to a particular act. Strategically, it’s meant to deter Syria from taking similar actions in the future. Russia has predictably moved to publicly support Syria. The status quo will probably remain; the ongoing moral challenge of Syria remains. 

As a matter of how the citizens of a republic ought to think about this kind of power, however, this poses another challenge. In the name of safety and security, we have generally granted each new president ever-increasing powers in matters of war. (Check back Saturday morning for another article touching on how and why that process happened.) It may well be that a swift response to Assad’s murder of Syrian citizens was in order, and there may be other situations in the future where military actions demand this kind of speed and secrecy. But the fact that a president--any president--need only say the word and inflict violence ought to give most people pause, and encourage us to think about the role we want Congress and our congressional representatives to play in these matters in the future, balancing national security with their duty to be heard.


An Introduction to Interpreting the Constitution


An Introduction to Interpreting the Constitution

Brian Andrew Smith is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University in New Jersey. Sarah Morgan Smith is an instructor in the Master of Arts in American History and Government (MAHG) program housed in the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University and co-director of the Ashbrook Center’s Religion in American History project.

Today, the United States Senate will begin confirmation hearings for President Trump’s nominee to the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch, who currently serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, is a potentially divisive nominee, if for no other reason than the fact that the seat has been empty for well over a year and many of former President Obama’s supporters believe the Senate should have taken action on his nomination of Merrick Garland.

In the modern era, Supreme Court nominations are frequently a highly partisan affair, but the bulk of the day-to-day work of the Court is not: roughly fifty percent of opinions issued by the court since 2010 have been unanimously decided.* Although over half of the court’s decisions are divided, the divide does not always fall along a left/right split. Writers often talk as if major court decisions follow directly from the presumed political preferences of the justices, “conservative” versus “liberal” or “progressive.” The trouble with these labels is that they ignore the fact that in the Supreme Court’s own account of their work, in the text of the opinions issued from the bench, what the justices (regardless of their interpretive predilections) focus their attention upon is precedent, textual meaning, and the intent behind the laws they are called to consider.

*You can view the breakdown of the court’s opinions for every term since 2010 online.

Two Approaches

As one commentator has noted, “being a Supreme Court justice is like holding a ‘spork’ and trying to decide whether it is more like a spoon or a fork.”* Given the same set of precedents, legal history, and text, individual justices often reach quite different conclusions about how the law applies. At least since the New Deal, the major interpretive divide on the Supreme Court has been between defenders of “originalism” and advocates of “living constitutionalism.”

*See Lax and Rader, “Legal Constraints on Supreme Court Decision Making: Do Jurisprudential Regimes Exist?” The Journal of Politics 72(2), 283.

To put it very briefly: originalism, as the name implies, argues that in resolving contests over Constitutional meaning, we should strive to implement the intent of the original framers of the text as closely as possible. The political payoff of such an approach is a level of certainty about the limits of political action, and thus a degree of predictability and stability in government for both citizens and legislators. Living constitutionalism, by contrast, sees original intent as the beginning of a conversation whereby the actual clauses are expanded to new shades of meaning driven by present political concerns. This naturally allows the judges greater latitude in providing remedies to aggrieved citizens or in extending rights to new areas of life.[SMS1] 

An agreement that a case involves first amendment issues, then does not necessitate every justice rule the same way on the application of the right(s) in question.* Making these judgments fairly is a challenging mandate for fallen creatures. Law is not a machine, and the issues judges decide are seldom unambiguous. If cases could be decided on a mechanistic basis, the entire system could be streamlined simply by replacing judges with computers. No serious person would entertain such an idea, however, for the simple reason that we all recognize the inherent limitations of language and the potential injustice of thoughtless applications of the law without regard for circumstances. This does not mean that precedent, textual meaning, and intent are irrelevant, or that the law is simply whatever the justices say that it is (or should be). Rather, it means that the role of the justice is to sift through the competing facts of the case in light of all relevant legal considerations to discover how the law applies in any given instance.

*See for example, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun, concurring opinion in James M. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529 (1991), at 549.

What’s missing from the public debate over Constitutional meaning is a recursion to first principles. As citizens, we relate to the government through not only the structure but also the premises of the Constitution. In certain ways, the Constitution itself requires us to accept an underlying set of commitments derived from natural law and embodied in the Declaration of Independence that Christians are ideally positioned to champion.

The Word of the Law and the Law of the Word

Christians of all stripes rightly believe that government ought to advance at least some of the issues of justice and morality we hold dear. And although we often fundamentally agree about what those issues are, faithful believers may disagree over the ways in which they might best be realized. In practice, although we look to Scripture for guidance in how to think about these highly contentious issues, to engage with their political aspects we are forced into debates about the nature and role of government itself.

In the American context, such questions center on the Constitution: the institutional structure it creates, but also the rights implicitly and explicitly found in the text. And here we are on much shakier ground: it’s hard to identify much obvious help in Scripture when thinking about constitutional interpretation or what judges should do in a modern multicultural republic. There is a long tradition in Christian political philosophy of thinking abstractly about lawfulness and the elements laws must have to encourage citizens to consider them seriously. Law should be clear so that citizens can understand them. Since it is unjust to hold citizens accountable for breaking laws of which they are unaware, laws must publicized. They should also be framed in a general way, so that as much as possible they apply to all citizens equally. But if we presume that under all but the most extreme conditions, the Constitution itself fulfills these criteria, then these kinds of discussions don’t tell us all that much about what we as citizens should think about it.

While the basic principle found in Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2:13-17 of giving due respect to those who interpret and enforce the law seems clear, we must ask what it means to honor the political sovereign. This is especially challenging in a representative government where we ourselves are that sovereign. Every American citizen has an obligation to interpret the Constitution at least as far as such an interpretation can help guide our political choices. At a minimum, this means we must ask whether to give priority to honoring “we the people” in our historic capacity as represented in the founding, or to honoring ourselves in our contemporary embodiment as represented in electoral returns, public polling, and democratic protest. These two broad instincts inform the major interpretative divide between those who adopt a relatively fixed “originalist” reading of the text and defenders of an evolving understanding of the Constitution as a “living” document. Neither approach is inherently more compatible with Christian teaching than the other, and each can be utilized to defend justice.

Christians might offer something unique to the conversation by uniting originalist and living constitutionalist concerns: as “people of the Book” we understand what it means to live in light of a text. In applying our faith-born intuitions to Constitutional interpretation, we might follow the example of former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Although Douglass deeply respected the accomplishments of the American people at the founding, he rejected the idea that “the people” in any given political moment were obliged to uphold any particular meaning of any specific clause of the Constitution simply because it could be shown to have been current at the moment of ratification. Instead, he argued that “we have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future.”* Usefulness, for Douglass, is not unprincipled pragmatism: the single greatest political utility depended upon the fulfillment of the aspirations listed in the Preamble of the Constitution “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The challenge for us is to extend these over all citizens without destroying the culture of lawfulness and respect for legal precedents that makes constitutionalism meaningful. Douglass unites elements from both major schools of interpretation in what we call “living originalism.”

*Frederick Douglass, “The Meaning of the Fourth of July for the Negro,” Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2000), 193.

Trying Out Frederick Douglass' Approach

Adopting such an interpretive stance toward the Constitution may require us, as it did Douglass, to read between the lines at times, recognizing that our civic obligation to realize the aspirations of the Preamble may well change in relation to our collective capacity to do so. At the same time, it may also require that we recognize the inherent tensions among those aspirations and, resigning ourselves to the imprecise and imperfect nature of the system, to make tradeoffs among them as prudence requires.

To take one example of this approach, most Christians can agree on the sanctity of life as a matter of both theology and justice. However, from a constitutional perspective, they might or might not agree with Neil Gorsuch’s stated opposition to euthanasia and his argument that the best understanding of the Equal Protection Clause requires that we maintain “an exceptionless norm against the intentional taking of human life by private persons.”* Gorsuch may be right on the moral question, from a Christian standpoint, and equally wrong in insisting upon the resolution of that question within the Constitution rather than as a matter of political debate. On the other hand, Gorsuch’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in this case may well embody the sort of “living originalism” that we have ascribed to Douglass, looking as it does to the principle underlying the text, rather than focusing exclusively upon the historical contingencies surrounding it.

*Neil M. Gorsuch, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 157.

Supreme Court justices often surprise (and even confound) those who appoint them. We cannot know with any certainty how Gorsuch’s opinions will develop over time, nor should we insist that he speculatively commit to positions in the hearing process. Christian charity demands that even if we object to his interpretative approach, we remain at least open to the possibility that his positions are derived from sound legal reasoning and not simply political expediency. In conscience, we may urge our representatives to either support or oppose him: we may not, however, vilify him.

As a practical matter, Christian citizens ought not just respect the Constitution and those called to interpret it. Drawing on our experience as people of the Book, we ought to strive to live the underlying premises of the Constitutional text: to think and act in ways that apply our reason and faith to the law in such a way that we honor it through our day-to-day interactions with one another and our fellow citizens. Rather than viewing the Constitution as either a mere abstraction or a political tool, we can proactively work to ensure the realization of the promises of the preamble in the various spheres where we find ourselves. We can, for example, look upon the work of the policeman or the school teacher as contributing to domestic tranquility; that of the street sweeper, park ranger, or artist as to the general welfare. We can, in our private homes and relationships, work to advance the liberty of all by educating ourselves in the virtues required for self-government.

Sign Up For Resources and Updates

Are you interested in getting news, event alerts and monthly resources from the Center for Christian Civics? Sign up for our mailing list to stay in the know!

Name *


Your Representatives Don't Live In Washington


Your Representatives Don't Live In Washington

Body Politic reader Michael Searway shares his experiences working in a Congressional district office and what lessons we can learn for our civic lives today.

For the vast majority of Americans, who don’t live in or near our nation’s capital, Congress probably feels far away—in both a geographic and conceptual sense. But it’s a lot closer than you think. Each Member of Congress has at least one ‘district office’ located in their Congressional district—the area that they represent in their work in Washington. When the Member is at home, generally during a recess, that’s where they work—although they’re often travelling around their district during that time as well.

Most of the time, the district office is staffed only by case workers or field representatives. These staffers are chiefly responsible for helping the people of that district—referred to as "constituents"—with various requests that they might have, such as a problem with a federal agency. They will also convey messages from constituents or local groups and organizations to the Washington office, and vice versa. Of course, like Congressional staffers in Washington, the district office staff is often aided by interns, especially in the summer. I took on such an internship the summer before my senior year of college, working in the local office of my Congressman, George Radanovich, in California’s Central Valley. One of my primary responsibilities was responding to correspondence from constituents and passing their messages on to the local staff or our colleagues in Washington.

As a 21 year-old, I got to have some incredible conversations that summer and support several projects that I’m still proud of today. Unfortunately, though, I can still place the bulk of those letters and phone calls into one of maybe three categories—none of them very serious about civic engagement. At least a third of the complaints came from just a handful of constituents, who we came to know on a first-name basis. They generally included some conspiracy theories and related anti-everything screeds. Another third or so were expressions of opposition to a major immigration reform bill under consideration in Congress at the time; these messages, at least, dealt with legislation, but were generally more ‘anti-immigrant’ in tone than ‘anti-reform,’ and just barely touched on the actual substance of the law. Finally, about a quarter to a third were requests for White House and/or U.S. Capitol tours for constituents visiting Washington. (The tours are excellent and we strongly encourage you to reach out to your representative to arrange a tour if you are going to visit DC.)

All of this led me to a dual-natured, surprising discovery: Connecting with your Member of Congress is much more feasible, and effective, than you might think—yet this channel remains vastly underused by most U.S. residents. So if our political system is broken, we need to blame ourselves as much as the politicians and other professionals that run the country’s government and political machinery.

Of course, we don’t. In the United States, we regularly, mistakenly think that our civic duty begins and ends on Election Day. Or, put another way, we often think that "democracy" equals "voting" (though even by this low standard we perform pretty poorly). But we live in a representative democracy, where we don’t actually vote directly on most major matters of public life—we choose ‘representatives’ to do that for us, at the national as well as local and state levels. While we can simply lend these men and women our vote and then leave them alone for a couple years, they need our ongoing input if they are to adequately represent us.

That’s what Congressional district offices are for. The staffers are there to help constituents, but they’re also there to gather input. Our Members of Congress need our phone calls, our visits, our letters, our emails, our faxes. They need our voices—and preferably our faces too. Now sure, it’s easy to come up with excuses for not reaching out to your district office—I could fill a separate listicle with them. But if you do decide not to engage, you have to also put aside your Election Day complaints and accept that your more-engaged neighbors and interest groups are shaping our national and community discussions. As I look back on the summer of 2007 and those anti-immigration calls and letters, I can see early traces of the (understandably) angry groundswell that has brought Donald Trump to the White House. Those voices intensified and consolidated during and after the Great Recession, resulting in a message heard by all of Washington, the country, and the world.

From what I hear from my friends who still work for Congress, constituent correspondence has greatly increased since last November. Let’s make sure this isn’t just a post-election or post-inauguration spike. The 115th Congress will be here for the next two years, the Trump Administration for at least the next four. Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, don’t just tune out until the next elections. By all means vote, but understand that by the time the polling places open, it’s almost too late to have a constructive influence.

Again, a healthy representative democracy requires engaged citizens; we have both an opportunity and an obligation to keep our leaders informed about the districts and communities they represent. And we can do much to dial down the loud, divisive rhetoric that has dominated our country over the past few years. Start by finding your closest Congressional office (or at least its phone number) and having a conversation with the staffers or interns that work there. They’ll probably be surprised to see you, and you’ll probably be surprised at how they listen.



Our Redeemer Liveth: The Administration of God

The following article is the transcript of a homily delivered by pastor and Body Politic reader Rev. Dr. Richard Hyde earlier this year. Rev. Hyde served as Associate Chaplain of Dartmouth College and pastored small churches in New England and California, earned a master's degree in public administration from the Harvard Kennedy School and a doctorate in religion and public life from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, and has lectured at the School of Advanced International Studies and the State Department. He is currently Pastor of the First Congregational Church of Gray, Maine. 

This is the 26th Sunday after Pentecost, the last Sunday after Pentecost that we number as such. Next Sunday is the 27th Sunday after Pentecost, but we celebrate it as the Feast of Christ the King, an anticipation of Advent, the season of four weeks during which we prepare to celebrate the birth of Christ the King, the Messiah, the Savior, Our Lord. 

We have had an election. It was one of the most bitter in our history. One has to go back to the elections of 1800, 1828 and 1860 to find anything so bitter and contentious. I sometimes think that we have become so good at running powerful and often negative political campaigns that we are destroying our ability to accomplish anything and might even be destroying our ability to be one nation. Ambrose Bierce, the 19th Century American author of the Devil’s Dictionary, defined politics as the systematic organization of hatreds. It’s a definition that is supposed to make one laugh, but it’s not as funny as it once was, because that is so obviously what politics has become.  

Whether this election was ultimately a triumph or a tragedy for you, I hope that you will be humbled or comforted by the good news of the gospel that God is in charge of history, that God is the one who saves us from ourselves and who deserves our ultimate trust. The Christian Church has seen presidents and prime ministers and kings come and we have seen them go.  We celebrate the triumph of Christ in good times and bad and the times in between. 

For our worship today I chose some very important verses from this very important Letter of Paul to the Romans and some very surprising verses from the Book of Job, what is otherwise one of the gloomiest books in the Bible, to help us finish the season of Pentecost and look forward to celebration of Christ the King.

These verses are perhaps the most comforting in the Bible.  We always need to hear some words of comfort. 

The verse from Job has become famous because of Handel’s Messiah.  

“I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth”

This is the Gospel in miniature, as good as John 3:16 - “for God so loved the world that he gave his only son” - and I never get tired of hearing it. What an amazing premonition it is of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. I look forward to hearing it sung at Christmastime every year and never listen to it otherwise so as not to detract from how special it is.  I know it’s not Christmas yet, but with the Holly Fair next week – close enough.   

Then we turn to Paul for some lines even more magnificent although they have not been set to music: all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

This news is still good some 2000 years after Paul announced it. In this time of great national divisiveness, we need to hear and share this good news. And since Christ is with us, may we dare to share the good news with those who need to hear it and with those with whom we may not have much in common.  

I have read many thoughts about the recent election and our current predicament, but the best I have found were written down some 50 years ago, by British theologian John Stott:

“Our Christian habit is to bewail the world’s deteriorating standards with an air of rather self-righteous dismay. We criticize its violence, dishonesty, immorality, disregard for human life, and materialistic greed. ‘The world is going down the drain,’ we say with a shrug.  But whose fault is it?  Who is to blame?  

Let me put it like this.  If the house is dark when the night falls, there is not sense in blaming the house; that is what happens when the sun goes down. The question to ask is: “Where is the light?” Similarly, the meat goes bad and becomes inedible, there is not sense in blaming the meat; that is what happens when bacteria are left alone to breed.  The question to ask is, ‘Where is the salt?’  

Just so, if society deteriorates and its standards decline, till it becomes like a dark night or stinking fish, there is no sense in blaming society; that is what happens when fallen men and fallen women are left to themselves, and human selfishness is unchecked. The question to ask is, ‘Where is the church? Why are the salt and light of Jesus Christ not permeating and changing our society?’ It is sheer hypocrisy on our part to raise our eyebrows, shrug our shoulders or wring our hands. The Lord Jesus told us to be the world’s salt and light.  If darkness and rottenness abound, it is largely our fault and we must accept the blame.”

I do not wish to lay a heavy burden on us this morning, but the nation needs healing and we know that our Redeemer liveth and he shall stand at the latter day on the earth. We need to bring this good news to our neighbors, to the people we like and the people we dislike.  Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with us.


The Gift of the Outsider


The Gift of the Outsider

Alicia Akins is a recovering expat based in DC who has spent eight years living in Asia, and has worked both as a missionary and as a museum educator. Alicia first developed a love for ministry in college and enjoys encouraging others toward a deep love of the Bible and its application. She blogs at Feet Cry Mercy.

The first person I texted the morning after the election was my gay Muslim friend.

“I am sorry.”

He replied, “Thanks. We’re in this together.”

I hadn’t even voted for Trump. As a black woman, my demographic overwhelmingly wasn't about that. When polled, 90% of black women said they planned to vote and 94% of us voted for Clinton. But, I am not only a black woman; I am also an evangelical Christian and I felt it’d be good for my friend to hear those words of concern from one of us that morning when what he was used to hearing from us sounded, to him, like ill will.

If there is anything my blackness has conditioned me to do, it is to think in terms of we and not I. Call it the gift of the outsider.

In This Together

My friend and I don’t appear to have much in common. He is Muslim, I am Christian. He is male, I am female. He is gay, I am straight. We are, however, both "hyphenated Americans" and, as minorities, we bear similar scars from others’ phobias and -isms. We come to each other’s defense. When I’m most vulnerable to feeling isolated, I often feel more “in it together” with him than with my white Christian male friends: This summer, when Rep. Steve King asked, rhetorically, what non-Europeans have contributed to civilization, my friend didn't merely disagree with his remarks--he nearly exhausted himself defending the contributions of people of color to society, showing an impressive depth of knowledge about black history. Without being asked, he would offer support after tragedy struck the black community. And rather than complain about protests inconveniencing his commute, he would join them. What was perhaps most comforting was that I did not have to explain to him why and when I could use support in the first place.

When grief and injustice strike the black community, finding a white Christian shoulder to help carry that burden feels like the search for Atlantis, so I’ve learned to stop looking. Instead, I turn to fellow Christians of color—any color—for support.

With my white brothers and sisters in Christ, it rarely feels like we're in this together. Yet the command for this could not be clearer: “Carry each others’ burdens and in this way you fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:2) In fact, it feels like not even the normal rules apply. When my grandmother died earlier this year, I got sympathy. When a black person is wrongfully killed somewhere across the country, my appeals for support are often met with silence or defensiveness. Perhaps they don’t understand that this, too, is a special and personal type of grief. John Metta said it best:

“To understand, you have to know that Black people think in terms of Black people. We don’t see a shooting of an innocent Black child in another state as something separate from us because we know viscerally that it could be our child, our parent, or us, that is shot.”

The death my grandmother died is still 50 years in my future; the death of Renisha McBride could be mine tomorrow.

The U.S. church does not usually do “we’re in this together” well when it comes to race. But we need to. Not for my feelings’ sake but for the sake of the church itself and its witness to the world. Frankly, neither my feelings nor yours should be my principle concern. What I should care more about than either of those is the body of Christ. And while society might not have lavished opportunities on my white Christian brothers and sisters to naturally develop empathy as generously as it has given to blacks and other people of color and minorities, God nevertheless demands it of all his people.

A Church Divided

Martin Luther King, Jr. called it a “shameful tragedy” that the most segregated hour in America was eleven o’clock Sunday morning. Though the bond between Christians should be stronger than any other, race divides the church even when people of color show up and nest ourselves amongst the “other.” Often, by choosing to worship in majority white churches, we waive access to support we might more easily get elsewhere. A friend once suggested I find more black friends to get the support that I needed. What I need more than more black friends is for the church to be the church. While I may enjoy common interests and diversions with my white friends, that “brother born of adversity” is nowhere to be found when that adversity is of the racial injustice variety. The friend who is loving at all other times suddenly strains and fails to endure all things and not be proud or self-seeking.

Towards the end of his public ministry, Jesus prayed for his believers “that all of them may be one.” Why? So that the world may believe that God had sent him. The world’s belief in his ministry would hinge on our unity. That he would stake so much on his church coming together—especially to show it’s tensile strength where it was most likely to fracture—confirms its strategic importance in advancing the gospel. Unity advances God’s kingdom; disunity is a coveted win for the enemy. To destroy the church’s witness, undermine its unity.

We would do well to remember that on earth we work for God’s campaign and we are His ground team. 

The Bond of Peace

“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” 
Ephesians 4:3 

Paul says that peace and unity are of a kind. And Jesus, opening his sermon on the mount, called the peacemakers blessed, for they will be called children of God.

Active conflict is not the only way to display disunity. In fact, the Israelites were thrice rebuked for a more pernicious and deceitful threat: false peace. The Lord came down hard on them in Jeremiah:

“They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush.”
Jeremiah 6:14-15

To the wounded today this slipshod bandaging takes many shapes: Accusing others of making everything about race. Claiming racism doesn't exist. False equivalencies. Attempting to disprove prejudice through tokenism. Further burdening the marginalized by making them responsible for reconciling on the terms of the empowered. Disinterest. Complacency. Complicity. Defensiveness. Silence. Retreating to the comfort of privilege. Making light of the invisible weight of otherness. Insisting you have what you have through sheer effort and determination alone. Praising--and taking for granted--the forgiveness of the aggrieved while not demanding the repentance of the aggressors. Extending the benefit of the doubt to only those who look like you. Questioning the legitimacy of any experience that differs from yours. Resisting rebuke. Refusal to open your “I” to the Jesus-affirming fellowship of “we.” 

These are neither the words or actions of peace-loving people but of comfort-loving people. Woe to those who are comfortable.

Ironically, “we” thinking is not uncommon amongst my nonreligious liberal peers. They, though unbound by Biblical mandate and unaided by the Holy Spirit, carry not just my burdens but the burdens of others who in many ways are not like them. I've long wondered why so many who don’t know God pursue racial justice with such vigor, yet we who find both reason and resource in Christ do not.

Sorry But Not Guilty

Maybe it’s just me. I come from a military family and when I lived in China, I befriended a woman from Hiroshima. When I first met her, I felt awkward, even though I hadn’t personally dropped a bomb on her hometown. Later when I visited Hiroshima with her, I was translating a travel guide from English for her as we created our itinerary and as place after place had been destroyed by US military I would interrupt my translating to say sorry. 

Another of my best friends is a Vietnamese woman I lived with in Southeast Asia for a year.  My grandpa fought in Vietnam. I remember the night this came up over dinner and the mood went from lively to somber. I didn’t say to my friend when she showed me pictures of the residual human cost of the war, “Hey, I’m only 33. I’ve never killed a person in my life. Vietnam wasn’t my fault. Maybe you guys deserved it.” None of that. But these are the kind of responses I get to confessions of racial trauma. I can’t apologize on behalf of America or on behalf of our military and that's not really what I was doing. I apologized for the pain my group had inflicted on her people. It didn’t matter to me that it wasn’t my fault. This was my friend and the damage was real, her feelings were real, and my sympathy was real.

The Curse of Individualism

Earlier this year, my plan to read through the Bible in chronological order got waylaid in Leviticus. But, at two months and just four chapters in, I came across a passage about the collective unintentional guilt of the Israelite community: 

“If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, when they realize their guilt and the sin they committed becomes known, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and present it before the tent of meeting.” 
Leviticus 4:13-14

Moses, in giving the rules for proper worship and sacrifice said that a blameless living sacrifice must be offered for both sins of a group and sins committed unintentionally.

As Americans, our individualism is a matter of national pride. In the same article cited above about Blacks thinking in terms of Blacks, Metta contrasts that with white thinking: “White people do not think in terms of we. White people have the privilege to interact with the social and political structures of our society as individuals. You are “you,” I am “one of them.” Whites are often not directly affected by racial oppression even in their own community, so what does not affect them locally has little chance of affecting them regionally or nationally. They have no need, nor often any real desire, to think in terms of a group. They are supported by the system, and so are mostly unaffected by it.” Individualism that inhibits Christian unity displeases God. Paul urges the Christians in Philippi to take Jesus as their example, “Each of you should look not only to your own interest, but also to the interests of others.”

Wounds From a Friend Can Be Trusted But An Enemy Multiplies Kisses

I am not off the hook in this quest for unity, either. I perpetuate false peace. As Amy Carmichael, a missionary to India, said: "If I fear to hold another to the highest goal because it is so much easier for me to avoid doing so, then I know nothing of Calvary love." If I weary in the pursuit of true unity to preserve my feelings; if, in buckling under the strain, I capitulate to ease my discomfort rather than look to Jesus who yokes himself with me and offers rest;  if I put my hurt feelings before the good of the church; if I am content to abandon the true beauty, well-being, and wholeness of the body because I cannot see with eyes of faith that God brings fruit in His time and in His ways I am just as guilty of peddling counterfeit peace.

As necessary as the Holy Spirit is in uncovering the biases in our hearts, the work of bearing patiently with our brothers and sisters in love can no more be done without it. 

We must, whether through tears, tiredness, hardship, misunderstandings, slow and labored strides, and the smallest seedlings of faith, continue to point our brothers and sisters toward justice because this is not simply our cause-- it is the Lord’s. We can not consider ourselves above being patient with those who are slow to learn for we can find no example for that in the life and love of Jesus. While our otherness has perhaps primed us more easily for empathy, it is a gift given that we may exercise it. We are stewards of the sensibilities that that gift endows and from those to whom much is given, much is required. Let us be instruments of grace. 

Do Not Grow Weary In Doing Good, For At The Proper Time We Will Reap A Harvest If We Do Not Give Up

To my fellow weary Christians of color, I know that the world will whisper in your ear, "You owe them nothing.” There is no ear among the church unvisited by this lie. But Ephesians 4:25 says otherwise--we are members of one another. 1 Corinthians 12:21-26 says the eye cannot say to the hands, "I do not need you" and the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable. God has put the parts of the body together so that there should be no division but that its parts should have equal care for each other. If one part suffers every part suffers with it.”

We are no less caught in the clutches of injustice than they in the clutches of privilege. We, as people of color, may suffer our scourge publicly while our white brothers and sisters suffer a no less unyielding yet subtle perversion. Ours leaves its lashes on our bodies and deprives us of opportunities on earth while theirs, though often undiagnosed, is never without effect on their soul. I cannot help but think of Jesus’ words that it is hard for the rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven and I cannot help but see why.

So let’s be in this together. I promise to do my best not to strain even if you don't promise to reflect.

Original photo by DryHundredFear, used under Creative Commons


Inauguration Day Prayer Call


Inauguration Day Prayer Call

At the start of a new presidential administration, the Center for Christian Civics held a national conference call to pray for those who are dreading the new era in American politics and those who are eager for it.

This call features Rev. Mike Park of Grace Downtown in Washington, DC, and Center for Christian Civics Executive Director Rick Barry. Our next call will be held Tuesday, January 24, 2017.

Join Our Next Call


Run Congress Like A Congress


Run Congress Like A Congress

Caleb Paxton is the Founder of Liberatus, a weekly journal about bringing Truth and Beauty to American politics, written by people on the inside. Before starting Liberatus in March 2015, he worked on Capitol Hill, with campaigns for state and federal office, and for grassroots issue advocacy nonprofits.

If you’ve spent any time following politics, you’ve likely heard candidates giving their stump speech use the phrase, “Run it like a business.” It’s a common refrain aimed at solving dysfunction, whether in Congress, the Executive Branch, or government bureaucracy.

Having worked in Congress, on the campaign trail, and for political nonprofits over the past decade, I do believe we can learn how to do our work well by looking at other areas of our culture, including business. But what we miss when we think of Congress as a business is that it is not a business. It is, in fact, a Congress. A representative body should function as a representative body.

Monologues to an Empty Room

When you take a tour of the U.S. Capitol, there’s a short video you can watch before you leave the visitor center and take the escalator up into the center of the free world. It’s a bit epic in tone, and there’s a point where the narrator declares, “Congress is where we find our common ground.” Except it isn’t—not really, or not often enough. Despite the founder’s intention of creating a place where everyone from Upstate South Carolina to downtown San Francisco can come to find common ground, to make this fifty-state experiment of representative government work, instead we come with agendas that exclude other people from the outset. Instead of the House Floor being a place where we give and take ideals and ideas, reason together, and explore the nuances of policy, it’s often an empty chamber: if you’re lucky enough to get a staff-led tour, you can sit on the House Floor or touch the lecterns where Members regularly give speeches to no one.

The truth is, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, and all the rest didn’t form a nation by delivering monologues to an empty room in Philadelphia. They didn’t go back to their home states thankful they said the right things to get sent back to Philly to do it all over again. And they weren’t obsessed with gaining power as much as they were focused on creating a nation.

But today, we run Congress like a business: offices focus on their long-term survival, and Members raise hundreds of thousands in capital to fund re-election. It’s true that the bottom line of campaigning is getting votes, but the bottom line of governing, similar to the nonprofit sector, is wisdom: governing well so humanity can flourish.

And if you’re a follower of Jesus and you work in politics, the great relief of the gospel is that we can view our work outside the categories of money, power, and the passing pressures of how an agenda fits in the current news cycle. We can turn our work into a work of art.

Congress As It Was Meant To Be

Congress is known for a near-constant approval rating of fifteen percent. And while the daily challenge is creating a place where representatives of 435 slices of America come together and vote on real world policies that affect millions of people, it could become a world-class institution despite the seeming inevitable gridlock.

I firmly believe that a Congress with an eighty percent approval rating is possible—but it would look totally different from what we see today. I think the day-to-day tasks would change to meet the challenge of governing well.

What would it look like if Congress became a world-class institution, and how do we end the gridlock? What would running Congress like a Congress look like in real life?

We have to begin by reassessing what we value. If followers of Jesus believe they are image-bearers of a great artist-creator, then they would live a bigger story than the failed us vs them dialogue that’s plaguing the major parties. If we truly believe in living in a democratic republic, how we govern and how we debate the issues should matter more to us than winning—or spinning—the debate at all costs to gain power. We would value honest, factual debate. We all want our voices to be heard, but do we still want everyone else’s voices to be heard, too? Or would we rather shut opposing views out of the conversation altogether? There are real incentives to shut them out: It’s easier to galvanize support when you cast the other side as a problem to be eliminated instead of partners in finding a solution, but doing so sacrifices detailed debate .

We would also elevate creativity in our work culture. And I believe that creative work, by nature of being creative, would be focused on achieving specific objectives, looking at our work with a long-term view, regardless of what headlines and talking heads are saying. Greater focus in work priorities in Congress would also help heal and elevate political rhetoric, encouraging Members of Congress and others to spend extended periods of time actually debating issues, with talking points backed up by factual research. We would finally be able to begin responding to each other’s specific points, rather than just talking past each other out of a worn playbook of canned, over-used zingers.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, we would care about the personal well-being of those doing the work to make Congress function as a great representative body. Burnout is a constant problem on Capitol Hill, and staffers are expendable because there’s no long-term objectives for which to retain them. However, prioritizing specific objectives would require empowering those working in Congress to do the work necessary to achieve the focused work and the factual debate. The culture of Capitol Hill would change from Member-as-celebrity, to Member-as-visionary, and therefore human beings would be valued as human beings, and not expendable young staffers who can be taken advantage of to further the careers and power quests of those they support.

These ideas are neither our ultimate savior, nor are they completely out of reach. Anyone working in American politics can run forward with the visionary mantra, “of, by, and for the people.” Members of Congress and their staffs can begin to change the usual political narrative, offering the country a view of governance that’s better than they would otherwise expect today. I believe a beautiful representative government is possible, both in our speech and in our day-to-day values and actions. We can indeed run Congress like a Congress.

Want to commit to praying for the work of your Congressional representative, as well as for your local and state-level government officials? Join us for our next prayer call!


2016 In Review, 2017 In Preview


2016 In Review, 2017 In Preview

"What the heck am I supposed to do this election season?”

A lot of people were wondering that this year. And what our faith means for our approach to government is something Christians in any democracy need to wrestle with over and over again as the climate around us changes and develops. That’s why we officially launched the Center for Christian Civics this past June: to empower our brothers and sisters in Christ to live out the gospel clearly and compellingly in their civic lives, across the country and across political lines.

As the year draws to a close, I want to take a moment to share some highlights from our first six months and give you a look at what we’re planning for the year ahead.

2016 Highlights

Over the course of the summer and fall, we provided support, coaching and resources to congregants, pastors and leaders in over 50 churches around the country. Our team also spent a good amount of time in 2016 leading classes on faith, politics and church community at congregations and schools in five states. These Bible study guides, books and classes were received excitedly across the board—after every class, attendees said that they’d never heard anything like it! I’d like to quickly share with you feedback we got from a participant in one of our classes in upstate New York:

“The workshop wonderfully highlighted the difference between what is ultimate—God’s word—and what is important, but not ultimate—politicians, policies, and earthly power. The event reminded me that other Christians deeply understood  this, even if they hold different political views from me. This was a powerful example of church unity and challenged me to more actively build this unity within the broader church.”

How exciting it is to know that people are leaving our workshops not just better equipped to honor the gospel in their own public lives, but to foster a broader community that does the same!

Many people also expressed a desire to learn how to pray for this subject in a biblical way. So in response, we launched an ongoing series of national prayer conference calls. These calls connect believers around the country with patient, balanced guidance in how to pray for the health of our country, the flourishing of our elected officials, and the effect the political process has on our church communities. The response has been great, and I’m excited to officially announce that we will be continuing these calls in 2017.

What to Expect Next Year

But these prayer calls aren’t the only thing we have planned for next year—I want you to be among the first to hear about four new projects we’re planning for 2017:

In the run-up to the election, we had to slow down our blog, The Body Politic, to focus on getting some of our election-season resources off the ground. But in 2017, we will be publishing more articles than ever on The Body Politic and drawing on an even wider range of writers. This will include an increased focus on the practical tools of civic education. Even more noteworthy, though, is that we’ll also be launching a new companion podcast in the first quarter of 2017! The Body Politic Podcast will highlight worthwhile teaching on faith and politics from churches and Christian schools around the country, as well as interviews and conversations with members of the Center for Christian Civics community.

Next, our team will be producing and releasing all-new Bible study guides for small groups who want a safe way to kick-start conversations about what it means for the church to cross political barriers. These shorter topical guides will cover topics like the divide between urban and rural sensibilities in our culture and the idolatries that make it hard to get along with people who don’t share your politics. (Our first Bible study guide, which examined how the gospel transforms the way we react to apocalyptic campaign rhetoric, will continue to be available, as well!)

We will begin providing focused guidance and mentorship to future church leaders. The first step in this process will be launching a new internship program. Over the course of the year, four college students and two pastors-in-training will have the chance to receive mentorship and instruction from the Christian Civics staff and board. We’re excited to begin providing these interns with practical discipleship by giving them a structured way to begin putting the things people talk about in our classes and workshops into practice in real ways.

Lastly, in 2017 we’ll be piloting new projects designed to foster fruitful fellowship between Christians across some of the biggest divides in U.S. politics: The divides between our country’s urban, suburban and rural communities. It can often feel like people in cities and people in small towns aren’t even speaking the same language, but scripture tells us that every tribe and tongue will be represented in the Kingdom. We’re excited to be part of the Spirit’s work, giving us a foretaste of that kingdom in the here and now.

Get Involved

Of course, none of this can happen without your involvement, and there are a few ways we’d love for you to help:

  • First, we’d truly appreciate you supporting our work by including us in your end-of-year giving. Would you make a year-end donation today?
  • Second, we ask that you’d join us on our journey through 2017 by becoming a monthly donor. Year-end gifts are absolutely crucial for kick-starting our work in the new year, but we can’t expand our team or budget responsibly without financial partners providing consistent encouragement and support. Please become a monthly donor in 2017.
  • Third, subscribe to our mailing list and use our prayer calls and monthly newsletters to guide prayer at your church, in your small group, or with your friends and family.
  • And lastly, pray for our staff and volunteers. Helping the church forge a new path forward in the way that we exist in the public square is going to be the long, hard work of a generation. Our staff, volunteers and supporters won’t be able to equip their communities effectively without the support of other prayer warriors around the country.

Thanks so much for your time, your prayers and your support. I’m more excited for 2017 than I think I’ve ever been excited for a new year. If you want to know more about other ways you can support our work or be a part of it, I’d love to hear from you—don’t hesitate to contact us.

In Christ,

Rick Barry
Executive Director
On Behalf of the Christian Civics team


An Apology: Republicans and Democrats Praying Together


An Apology: Republicans and Democrats Praying Together

Our last prayer call, which was held on December 6, ended abruptly in an unfortunate technical difficulty that was beyond our control.

Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we were unable to secure a recording of the entire call. However, we did manage to salvage a recording of the first prayer on the call, which came from Center for Christian Civics co-founder Daniel Leiva, who led us in prayer for the health of our political and governmental processes.

We're sorry again to everyone who joined us on the call and got disconnected abruptly. We've been assured by the conference call service that it won't happen again.

Join Us for Our Next Call