Here is another quote from Hart's book:
Instead of asking what role is permissible for Christians and their religious institutions in a liberal democracy, this book begins with a very different question: What does Christianity require of its adherents politically? … My argument is that the basic teachings of Christianity are virtually useless for resolving America’s political disputes, thus significantly reducing, if not eliminating, the dilemma of how to relate Christianity and American politics (p. 11).
I will discuss this quote point by point, since there are so many problems with it. Today the first point:
1. Hart states that Christianity is virtually useless "for resolving America’s political disputes."
Question: Is Hart right to see the goal and purpose of "politics" or civil government as being "the solving of political disputes"?
Is the purpose of government to resolve disputes and reduce conflict? My understanding of the Bible is that it teaches that government was instituted by God to establish and enforce justice regarding external behavior -- ie- to protect the God-given rights of human beings. Romans 13 speaks of rulers as punishing those who do evil and rewarding those who do good. The Old Testament speaks of rulers establishing justice, just weights and measures, guarding the rights of widows and orphans, being impartial in executing justice regardless of how wealthy or poor a person is. Even in the case of civil courts, the resolution of conflict must be done in accord with a standard of what is just, not simply toward a goal of resolving conflict without regard to what is just. And justice is defined by the fixed standard of God's character and moral law, not pragmatically in relation to a goal of peace and harmony. If we take Hart's goal as the standard we end up with a very sub-biblical view of government and the use of power. The problem is that when his whole thinking is premised upon this false view of what the purpose of government is, he cannot help but go astray.
It is either ironic, or completely fitting, that Hart advocates that we not use the Bible to inform our politics, and then we find out that the Bible certainly has not informed his view of the purpose of government or politics itself. He says we don't need the Bible and it won't help resolve political issues, and so he fails to use it to resolve those issues that the Bible clearly does speak to, and ends up with a very un-Christian understanding of politics and government as a result, having learned his view from the surrounding secularistic/naturalistic culture.
In the very beginning of my class on Biblical Principles of Government taught by Dr. Gary T. Amos, he taught us one of the most important differences between a Greek worldview and a Hebrew/Biblical worldview. This is very important because so many historians and thinkers today claim that the American system of government owes it origin to the ancient Greeks rather than the Bible. While there are many contributions that the Greeks made to our society, there is a failure to realize that our system owes more to the Bible than to the Greeks.
According to the Greek worldview, there is no distinction between authority and power. Power is all there is. Apart from a distinction between authority and power, might makes right. There is no fixed standard by which to judge that someone's use of power is wrong.
The Hebrew worldview articulated in the Bible presents a profound distinction between power and authority. Sometimes our Bible translation may not reflect this difference, since the translators under King James were influenced to favor a Divine Right of Kings view by translating the word "authority" as "power." So, for instance, when reading Romans 13, it is necessary to use the NASB which correctly translates exousia as "authorities" rather than "powers."
In the biblical system, God holds all authority over all created things by virtue of being the Author of creation. Authority simply means the right to do something. God has the right to decide what He will create and what each created thing's purpose will be. He then delegates limited authority to individuals, and to institutions such as the family, the civil government, the church according to what they are designed for (their purpose). A person has the right to do what God has commanded him to do, and other people do not have the right to stop him from doing what God commands. If someone prevents him from doing this duty to God, that person is doing wrong to you and to God and is violating your rights. That is where the theory of human rights originated, by the way, from the Biblical concepts of duty and authority. A vertical duty to God translates into a horizontal right toward other men.
Only with a system that distinguishes between authority and power can we actually sit in judgment over an authority figure and say they were wrong to do something. Only if there is a higher law that stands above the person in power over us is there the possibility of saying they were wrong to use their power a certain way. This is the concept of "Rule of Law" which flowed directly out of the Bible as Christian legal theorists applied biblical truths to law and government.
So, my conclusion is that Hart's understanding of the purpose of government is inadequate and this leads him to conclude that Christianity has little to add to helping governments to fulfill this purpose. He uses a false standard, though it isn't totally clear what this standard is, whether it is bringing all Americans to a consensus, or causing people on the political left and right to come together in harmony, or getting rid of partisanship in Congress. If that is the goal, then Christianity will not solve it, that's for sure. But neither will anything else, because the goal is utopian. In a fallen world, we will not all agree. Only when Christ returns will we have true peace and complete harmony, but only after great conflict!
