Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Saturday Afternoon Book Review: Allan Bevere

Saturday Afternoon Book Review: Allan Bevere

Last updated on: August 21, 2010 at 1:20 pm by Scot McKnight

Saturday Afternoon Book Review: Allan Bevere 2010-08-21T13:20:00-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Book Review by Allan Bevere, a Methodist pastor and professor — who blogs.

Francis J. Beckwith, Politics for Christians: Statecraft As Soulcraft (Christian Worldview Integration)

, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010.

Francis Beckwith’s Politics for Christians is one book in the Christian Worldview Integration Series and is written as a substantive and very readable introduction to politics and the Christian’s place in the realm of statecraft. Several major questions occupy Beckwith’s attention in the book.

First and foremost Beckwith argues that Christians have a responsibility to participate in the political realm and that they can and should do so as Christians. In giving substance to this concern, Beckwith gives a competent and readable account of liberal democracy and the Christian citizen’s place in it. He explores the notion of separation of church and state, the idea of that secular liberalism creates a neutral posture toward religion, and finally he works gives an account of the necessity of God in any understanding of natural rights and natural moral law.

In chapter one “The Study of Politics” Beckwith gives a helpful
introduction to politics and its subfields. He also devotes space to the
discipline of political philosophy and then specifically how that works itself
out in American politics and its relationship to international law, economics,
and public law.

The second chapter, “Liberal Democracy and the Christian Citizen”
provides a basic account of liberal democracy particularly as it is
demonstrated by the separation of powers. Beckwith defines “liberal” in this
context as that which “refers to the liberties or freedoms the government is
supposed to guarantee. These include freedom of religion, speech, assembly and
press, as well as the right to own property” (59-60). Democracy “refers to at
least two principles: self-governance and equality of citizens before the law”
(60). In this chapter Beckwith offers his account of the responsibilities of
Christians as citizens of the state justifying his understanding by appealing
to two classic New Testament texts in this area–Jesus’ comments about paying
taxes to Caesar (Mt. 22:17-22) and Paul’s admonitions to obey(?) the governing
authorities in Romans 13. However, Beckwith is also clear that there may indeed
be instances where Christians are obligated to disobedience when conscience
dictates. His approach to the state is essentially conservative “…the Christian
should not be too quick to accept government solutions that may have unintended
consequences of impeding the church’s opportunity to bear witness to Christ’s
grace in their works of charity and mercy” (66).

In chapter three, “The separation of Church and State,” Beckwith
analyzes the religion clauses in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
arguing that they are significantly vague, and give no direction on what is
meant by the free exercise of religion or the prohibition of its establishment.
One of the more enlightening parts of this chapter is where Beckwith discusses
Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he uses the now oft’
employed phraseology, “the separation of church and state.” Beckwith points out
that there was no agreed upon understanding of what it meant for the church to
be separate from the state. Jefferson was according to Beckwith “a strict
separationist,” while the recipients of the letter, the Danbury Baptists were
“moderate separationists.” And politicians of a more federalist bent excoriated
Jefferson for what they believed were his “anti-religious” views.

In chapter four, “Secular Liberalism and the Neutral State,” Beckwith
defines secular liberalism in a two-fold way: “It is liberal insofar as its proponents claim that… all citizens should
be treated with equal regard…” [which] “means that the state has an obligation
to ensure that adult citizens should be free to pursue whatever they believe is
good for them without the constraints of family, church, or other citizens’
objections, etc…. This perspective is also
secular, for it requires that the only permissible external restraints that
may be placed on citizens are those that are both not dependent on a religious
worldview…. This means that if the state is going to limit the citizen’s
liberty it must be for a nonreligious reason that enhances everyone’s liberty”
(120-121).

Beckwith rightly argues that secular liberalism is not neutral toward
religious expression, but is indeed discriminatory as it insists that the only
motivations that are valid in the public square are non-religious. It does not
allow for the full participation of citizens who are religious. Moreover,
Beckwith questions whether secularism can sustain the kind of liberalism that
guarantees liberty and equality for all.

It is Beckwith’s discussion of secular liberalism that paves the way for
his last chapter, “God, Natural Rights and the Natural Moral Law.” It is here
that Beckwith rehearses the argument that natural rights are based on natural
law that is given by the Creator. Beckwith quotes Alexander Hamilton, “… the
Sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or
musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of
human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or
obscured by mortal power” (146). Beckwith confronts the atheistic philosophy of
Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who reject the existence of God but
still want to argue for the reality of some kind of natural rights. Beckwith
suggests to the contrary that the natural moral law is not a product of chance,
but clearly points toward the existence of God. Beckwith ends the chapter with
the biblical witnesses’ affirmation of the existence of natural law.

Beckwith ends his book with the following: “To be sure, the world of
politics is often messy and teeming with conflict. But that’s true of so much
of life that is worth engaging, whether it’s family, church, school or
workplace. Thus, it is my hope that the readers of this book will take
seriously the wisdom of Ecclesiastes and discern the proper times for their
engagement in the world of politics” (165).

What I like about this book:

First, I appreciate Francis’ full disclosure of his own personal
political posture. He states that his views are more politically conservative,
so one knows what one is getting from him at the outset. Now those Christians
whose politics tend toward the progressive end may be tempted not to read Beckwith
because of this, but his political posture should deter no one. His treatment
of the issues is fair and even-handed, though no doubt problematic to those on
the political left. To avoid reading someone because his contrary views are
known at the outset is to resist the possibility of growing in wisdom.

Second, Beckwith rightly points out the double-standard that is put in
place in reference to the religious right as opposed to the religious left. He
argues quite cogently that Christians on the right are always challenged in
reference to mixing their religion with politics, but such challenges are
virtually absent to Christians on the political left. No Christian on the
political left would have to write a book that is essentially a defense of the
Christian’s place in politics.

Third, I truly appreciate the substantive depth Beckwith brings to his
discussion of moral issues and his clear and informative explication of case
law. His discussion of the context of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury
Baptists is almost worth the price of the book alone. He ably demonstrates how
a phrase divorced from its context becomes nothing more than a slogan.

Fourth, Beckwith’s presentation is measured. Though he comes to politics
as a Christian with a certain perspective, Beckwith is clear to point out that
politics this side of perfection is always finite and frail and that
Christianity should never be identified with either the Democratic or Republican
Party.

Fifth, his critique of the false idea that secularism takes a neutral
posture toward religion is singularly convincing.

Where I struggle:

As much as I enjoyed this book, and recommend it, I have two significant
points of disagreement. I will refrain from the minor points of contention:

First, Beckwith clearly buys into what I believe is the faulty account
of church/sect as explicated by Ernst Troeltsch and later expanded upon by
Reinhold Niebuhr. (When someone refers to a group as “sectarian” I always
respond, “Isn’t it somewhat arrogant to assume that you stand in a place where
you get to label someone else as “sectarian?”) The assumption operative here is
that the only way for Christians to be involved politically is to be active in
the political operations of the nation state. Those of us who strongly embrace
Anabaptist ecclesiology in reference to politics are falsely labeled as
“quietists,” and “sectarians,” who withdraw from the world. In reality, we
believe that the church and not the state is primarily where the political
action is because it is God and not the nations who rules the world. It is not
a matter of whether or not Christians should be politically involved; it is a
question of how they will be so involved. We Christians are so programmed into
the binary politics of left and right, liberal and conservative, church and
state, that it is extremely difficult to make sense of an ecclesiology that
sees the church as a nation unto itself. In other words, what I am suggesting is
that the typical account of the Christian and politics that Beckwith embraces
is inadequate and does not exhaust the ways Christians can be politically
engaged.

Second, Unlike Beckwith, I am not overly enamored with the notions natural
law and natural rights. I will not go so far as to say that natural law does
not exist, but after being involved in many discussions over the years where
people have attempted to make a moral case for something based on natural law,
I have concluded that if natural law does exist, it is so vague that it is
completely unhelpful in moral discernment.

But Beckwith’s book, Politics for
Christians is most definitely helpful for those who want a solid
introduction to politics and who are ready to ponder the believer’s place in
the rough and tumble world of statecraft.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 21, 2010

Weekly Meanderings

Next Post

August 22, 2010 Prayer for the Week

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the only disciple who was not martyred?

Select your answer to see how you score.

John Thomas Peter James