Unto Caesar
A Defence of Evangelical Christianity in Contemporary Politics
“ To Conclude, therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy: but rather let him endeavour an endless progress or proficiency in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not mingle or confound these learnings together.” — Sir Francis Bacon.
For my first edition of Alítheia & Lógos, I intended on writing about abortion, having spent the full month since the overturn of Roe V Wade reading broadly on the matter. I wrote in the introduction of my first draft that I did not intend it to be a treatise, but an overview of the unpopular pro-life side of the issue.
However, As I read more and more and wrote more and more, my ‘overview’ of the issue quickly began to grow into the treatise I promised I wouldn’t write.
As such, it is going to take some time to finish and edit. So, I have decided to put out this interim edition in order to keep to my pledge of one edition per month.
Now, the subject matter of this edition will serve as a primer of sorts on the forthcoming treatise on abortion. The problem, or better put, the opposition, that is continually run into when writing on an issue such as this, is how best to make a secular argument on an issue that is primarily informed by one’s faith. If religious convictions are deeply and genuinely held, then as sure as God’s got sandals, those convictions will inform the political thought and motivation of the man in possession of them.
However, in political debate, a religious argument carries but a smidgeon, at best, of convincing heft. At worst, it disqualifies one from the debate at the outset.
The substance of this article, therefore, is the importance, indeed the necessity of evangelical Christians in contemporary politics as the champions of contemporary social issues. The nature and moral value of human life, as necessarily central to religion, seems to be a field of advocacy exclusive to the church until matters relating to it are settled, at which time, when the hard work is done and the battle is over, secular society then takes it up belatedly as its champion and claims to have been so the entire time. All the while sounding warning calls that the separation of church and state is at risk because of the convictions of the men in public office who championed the cause to begin with.
Let’s, therefore, discuss church and state and what legitimate collaboration can exist between the two.
“ Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are God’s.” — Matthew 22:21
This statement from the mouth of our Lord was the miraculous foundation of the separation of church and state. As a young man, not knowing any better, I often wondered why church and state should be separate. Having an interest in both, and active involvement in the former, I wondered what harm could be done, indeed, what good could be done by the church as an active force in the state.
As is wont to happen, however, as I got older and began to shed the naivety of youth and discover the real nature of fallen man and his institutions, I began to understand why it is proper to separate them. Church history and European political history offer the only analysis we need to understand the grave necessity of the separation of church and state.
Church and state represent two layers of the human experience: the divine and the profane. Though the church is the institution through which man is connected to the divine and understands the sacred in order to transcend his profanity, it is inevitably populated, governed and conducted by fallible and corruptible men and used instead to reinforce his profanity. Such being the case, no sooner than Europe and its monarchs were Christianised did the church grow into an instrument of political power, reduced to the level of the profane and wielded singly to the corrupt ends of man.
Reduced as it was to profane ends, much of Church history can be characterised by unambiguously unchristlike behaviour. Such is the case and vice versa as well. Indeed, the separation of church and state was as much motivated by the protection of the church from the state as it was by the protection of the state from the church. Much persecution has been and continues to be levelled at the Christian church from governments around the globe, most notably now in China.
In Matthew 22:15–22, the Pharisees, having devised a plan to “entangle” Christ in his words, ask him if it is lawful to pay tribute (taxes) to Caesar. He calls on them to show him a coin, whereupon he asks whose face and superscription is upon it. “Caesars”, they naturally respond. To which Christ offers those famous words, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Christ, in a single sentence, here separates himself from and altogether rejects worldly currency, yet does so without invalidating the idea that we have something to offer both the church and the state. Had men of the church not also had something to offer the state, it is impossible to think that such social issues as slavery, equality before the law or the rights of women and children would ever have been reformed from the old ways.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that secularism has picked up many causes that it once not only rejected but considered embarrassing for ‘sophisticated’ individuals to care about. William Wilberforce, who led the abolition movement and the reformation of manners (morals) in the United Kingdom, and Abraham Lincoln, who did the same in the United States, faced the entirety of their opposition from the nominal, i.e, in name only, laissez-faire form of Christianity, but especially fiercely from the secular zeitgeist of the day.
I was told recently on Twitter that the Church is the cause of all current racism and injustice. Hence these are flippant times. The unfortunate truth is this; modern Australians, perhaps modern Westerners in general, do not understand that the causes of justice were championed by evangelical Christians and opposed by secular culture. The reverse is now claimed.
In his book ‘7 Men and the Secret of Their Greatness’ speaking of Wilberforce’s extraordinary leadership in the long campaign to abolish the slave trade, Eric Metaxas says, “ Even after he was very famous, most of fashionable society still felt that Wilberforce and his colleagues’ religious ideas about things like helping the poor and abolishing slavery were embarrassing. These detractors would end up on the wrong side of history, but at the time, their secular notions were the norm.”
All this is to say that while the church and the state as institutions are, and ought to be, separate, the men of the one ought not to separate themselves from the other. It is once again fashionable to draw attention to the dangers of the union between church and state whenever a man of obvious religious conviction acts according to said conviction in public life. Followers of such fashion would do well to remember that one man acting on principle is not emblematic of the joining of institutions, and, furthermore, to ask what the consequence of the absence of the convictions of Wilberforce or Lincoln from their public lives might have been.
I have no doubt that just as the abolition of slavery was once opposed by the secular zeitgeist and is now adopted by it as the most grievous injustice of history, such modern issues as abortion will one day be the cause and passion of secular society, their reformation having been necessarily championed by the courageous evangelical Christians of our own time. Though the readership of this publication is yet small, such a statement would make the hackles of some stand-up. Yet, it is an accurate characterisation of history.
After all, the fight against slavery, as is the case in the fight against abortion, is predicated upon convincing people to accept the inherent moral value of every human being, born or unborn, black or white. It is an inescapable indictment of past generations that the legal and moral equality of black and white was so opposed in fashionable circles. So too is it an indictment of the current generation that the legal and moral equality of the born and unborn is so opposed in today’s fashionable circles. To conclude, therefore, just as evangelical Christians never once shirked their faith in the fight for the equality of races, we must once again refuse to shirk our faith in the face of secular opposition in the fight for the moral and legal equality of the unborn.
Originally published at https://samwillis.substack.com on July 31, 2022.
