The essay is titled "Meditation on the Third Commandment" (appearing in God in the Dock), which seems odd because it's all about politics. But the title works, for reasons we'll come to in a bit.
Lewis says he frequently sees calls for a Christian political party in his 1940's Great Britain. He wants to explain why that would be a bad idea.
The thing is, the scriptures do not give us instructions on running a modern country. They give us moral guidelines and priorities, but it's left to us to work out exactly how to implement them. We mostly all have the same ends in mind — national security, a strong economy, and "the best adjustment between the claims of order and freedom." We differ over how to achieve those ends. "We do not dispute whether the citizens are to be made happy, but whether an egalitarian or a hierarchical State, whether capitalism or socialism, whether despotism or democracy is most likely to make them so."
He gives us three hypothetical Christians with vastly different political views. One we would probably call an integralist today, one a proponent of modern democracy, one a leftist. If these three views tried to come together, they could not agree on policy, so one would dominate the new party and the others would leave. That party would be made up of a minority of Christians, who are already a minority in the nation. So to gain any real influence, this new party would have to attach itself to the most similar non-Christian party: The democratically oriented would be "temped to accept aid from champions of the status quo whose commercial or imperial motives bear hardly even a veneer of theism." The other two would likely end up allied with fascists or communists, respectively.
What happens then?
"It is not reasonable to suppose that such a Christian Party will acquire new powers of leavening the infidel organization to which it is attached. Why should it? Whatever it calls itself, it will represent, not Christendom, but a part of Christendom. The principle which divides it from its brethren and unites it to its political allies will not be theological. It will have no authority to speak for Christianity; it will have no more power than the political skill of its members gives it to control the behaviour of its unbelieving allies. But there will be a real, and most disastrous, novelty. It will be not simply a part of Christendom, but a part claiming to be the whole. By the mere act of calling itself the Christian Party it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal."
So it cannot control its unbelieving allies and slanders (implicitly or explicitly) its brothers in Christ.
And so we come to the reason for the name of this essay: "Meditations on the Third Commandment." As an Anglican, Lewis thought of the third commandment as "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain." And this is exactly what happens. Brothers are anathemized for having different political opinions, while worldly allies are sanctified:
"The danger of mistaking our merely natural, though perhaps legitimate, enthusiasms for holy zeal, is always great. Can any more fatal expedient be devised for increasing it than that of dubbing a small band of Fascists, Communists, or Democrats 'the Christians Party'? The demon inherent in every party is at all times ready enough to disguise himself as the Holy Ghost; the formation of a Christian Party means handing over to him the most efficient make-up we can find. And when once the disguise has succeeded, his commands will presently be taken to abrogate all moral laws and to justify whatever the unbelieving allies of the 'Christian' Party wish to do. ... On those who add ‘Thus said the Lord’ to their merely human utterances descends the doom of a conscience which seems clearer and clearer the more it is loaded with sin."
He brings up some historical examples of this, but I expect we can all think of some more recent ones. And that is what makes this piece so compelling: It doesn't have to be a "Christian" party; we can always simply baptize a secular one, to the same result.
Both of the major American political parties have benefitted from this. The minor ones would, too, if they had any political power.
Over the years, Christians who side with either party have accused those who side with the other of being bad Christians. They minimize the faults of their party or candidate while decrying those of the other in the strongest terms.
And the world watches. And the Lord's name is dishonored.
So how should Christians think about politics and political involvement? Again, he gets historical:
"Nonconformity has influenced modern English history not because there was a Nonconformist Party but because there was a Nonconformist conscience which all parties had to take into account. An interdenominational Christian Voters’ Society might draw up a list of assurances about ends and means which every member was expected to exact from any political party as the price of his support. Such a society might claim to represent Christendom far more truly than any 'Christian Front'. ... ‘So all it comes down to is pestering [Members of Parliament] with letters?’ Yes: just that. I think such pestering combines the dove and the serpent. I think it means a world where parties have to take care not to alienate Christians, instead of a world where Christians have to be 'loyal' to infidel parties."
A minority like faithful Christians, he says, will only be able to influence politics by "pestering" them over issues about which the Bible directs us. Instead of selling our loyalty cheap, we have to be the most demanding of special interest groups, we have to make them earn our vote.
"But I had forgotten. There is a third way—by becoming a majority. He who converts his neighbour has performed the most practical Christian-political act of all."
So Lewis' prescription for political involvement is to be the conscience of our government and to be evangelists. I think our Lord would approve.
Image via Unsplash
No comments:
Post a Comment