“Does Christianity claim also our political life in America?” This question was posed at the recent “Second Christian Congress” by speaker John A. Olthius, L.L. B., executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship. The “Second Christian Congress,” held from July 14–16 at Trinity Christian College, Palos Heights, Ill., was attended by approximately 100 members of the Christian Action Foundation from across the United States.
Tn answer to Olthil1s’ question, the members of the Christian Action Foundation decided unanimously to restructure the C.A.F. and clarify its direction toward communal political action. The Foundation reorganized under the name of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CHRISTIAN POLITICAL ACTION. Immediate goals were set to develop a positive body of Christian political thought and to solicit members from among the 35–40 million evangelical Christians within the United States.
The former Christian Action Foundation was organized in the United States in 1966. Its members expressed their concern for the need to speak of the total life-giving power of Christ in the social, economic, judicial, political and educational areas of “the American way of life.”
The Christian Action Foundation had in the past addressed itself to specific issues of crucial importance on the state level. Among briefs presented to state legislatures were those placed before the Iowa, Illinois, and New Jersey state bodies on equality in education for public non-tax-supported schools, and a brief to the Iowa legislature on the freedom to work without compulsory membership in a single monolithic union.
The speakers at the Congress sessions were Dr. Paul C. Schrotenboer, general secretary of the Re-formed Ecumenical Synod and editor of the “International Reformed Bulletin”; Mr. John Van Dyk, professor of history and philosophy at Dordt College, Sioux Center, la.; and Mr. John A. Olthius.
Those attending the Congress agreed that much of the real business of the congress was not enacted in the “business” meetings. Rather, it was during the speeches which were given and the discussions following that the true significance of the Congress emerged. The avowed purpose of the speakers was to begin to form a body of Christian thought and analysis of the contemporary political scene in the United States. Within this framework the importance of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CHRISTIAN POLITICAL ACTION for future action within the political arena should be stressed.
Dr. Paul Schrotenboer addressed the opening morning session of the Congress with an analysis of the current “Crisis in American Politics” as his speech was entitled. He emphasized that any Christian analysis must be primed by knowledge of the law, i.e., the directives of God for life. In the area of politics and statecraft God has decreed that man must work for justice and the common-weal, i.e., the benefit of all.
“It is man’s task to realize in public law and practice this basic law of God. When man devises a form of government that draws the practical consequences of this basic law, then justice prevails and there is a general benefit to all,” Schrotenboer stated.
Biblical justice aids the poor, mistreated, and unfortunate, Schrotenboer emphasized. “God’s law is a source of blessing, even, to a degree, to those who do not accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.” Schrotenboer pointed out that man has failed to develop this basic law of justice in the state unto and through God. As a result , American society is disintegrating. He pointed to this disintegration in three areas: the crisis of authority and justice, the crisis of confidence and goodwill, and the crisis of world view.
In analyzing the present crisis in authority in the United States Schrotenboer noted the present polar dilemma represented on the one hand by advocates of strict “law and order” and on the other by the current dissent and “new left” movement in politics.
“The point is,” Schrotenboer stated, “that neither those who call for law and order, nor those who call for the overthrow of the present order give due regard to God’s basic law and plan. The former tend to identify their system with God’s law, and the latter act like the man of Jesus’ parable who feared neither God nor man…As a result we have a crisis in authority and justice, a crisis of mammoth proportions. It is seen in the campus, in the student movement, in the teaching at the universities, in the public demonstrations and counter-demonstrations.”
Schrotenboer further stated, “To understand the extent of the crisis we are in, we should note that it is more than a conflict concerning authority and justice. It is no less a crisis of confidence; in ourselves, in one another, and in our national destiny.” Americans no longer believe the “American dream” and in spite of the fact that America is polarizing along ideological lines. the present political science fails to recognize this fact and political parties continue to work merely for “practical results” with little difference existing between the principles of the Republican and Democratic parties. “This was done,” Schrotenboer stated, “in the hope that, by not stressing the differing views of politics, we could bring about a grand consensus in a ‘great society.’ THIS PLAN HAS FAILED. We sought to suppress the differences in faith, religion, basic ideas. And we find that dissent, polarization, violence, and frustration are the order of the day. And the nation does not know where to turn.”
In his final point Schrotenboer emphasized, “we will not sense the depths of the crisis we are in, unless we recognize that as a nation we are shaken to the depths of our being in our basic views of man, the world, and God.”
In the past, Christianity and humanism have been mixed in American government because the assumption was made that religion and politics occupy two separate realms. The First Amendment guarantees “freedom of religion” and in actuality claims that religion docs not belong in public life. Christians have been powerless in the midst of the crisis because they have accepted these terms of unconditional surrender.
Schrotenhoer also declared that Christians have not been working politically to present a thoroughly consistent Christian alternative. “To date we do not even have n penetrating and thorough Christian analysis of our history and our situation. We do not have a master plan, not even the rough lines of a blueprint, for responsible and communal Christian political activity. Our religious leaders have no common opinion. The fact is, they call for opposite actions. Some call for complete victory in Vietnam, regardless of the extent of the damage. Others call for a unilateral withdrawal without delay. Some side with the revolutionaries, others with the advocates of ‘law and order’.”
Schrotenboer concluded by stating, “This is the tragedy: the only people in the world who are called the light of the world have no light to give. We who have the promise that we may know what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God do not know where to go and what to do. This is the crisis.
“In such an hour we hold this second Christian congress. We must reflect. We must have vision, else we shall surely perish. We must be inspired and we must together, as a people of God, struggle together until we find a way to put form to this old world in which we live. Struggle until we are no longer satisfied to make a slight correction here and there, but only when we are the formers of statecraft, of beneficial ways of living together. Until justice will become a mighty rushing stream. Do not underestimate the lateness of the hour, or the tempo of change and deterioration, or the desperateness of the situation.”
The stated theme of the “Second Christian Congress” was “Christ’s Coronation in Politics,” emphasizing the need for Christians to exert the power of Christ in the political sphere. Mr John Van Dyk clarified this concept in his address on “The Vision for Christian Politics.”
Van Dyk began by stressing that man was created to exert a culturally formative power in the world, God’s creation. Because of sin this power is distorted and man uses it selfishly and often unjustly. Only through Christ’s redemption is it principally possible for man to exert this power, through Jesus Christ, in the political sphere to bring true justice and goodness.
Historically, Van Dyk continued, Roman Catholicism has identified the ecclesia, i.e., the body of believers with the instituted Roman Catholic Church. Under the influence of Greek and Roman philosophy, boundaries were set within the Christian life; such us those between “sacred” and “secular” and the church and the state. As a result, the power of Jesus Christ was withdrawn from those areas outside the realm of the instituted church, the area which alone was considered sacred. As the historical process of secularization began, the withdrawal of various areas of society from the power of the church also meant withdrawal from the power of the Word of God. “Once humanism took over, the instituted church needed an excuse to exist. The emphasis was placed upon personal happiness and testimony and a search for freedom from worry. Christians developed an introverted religion. In the public arena the Christian community had less and less effect,” Van Dyk stated.
“The task of the instituted church is to arm Christians with the Word of God,” Van Dyk emphasized. “But the sum total of the Christian life is not exhausted by the instituted church.”
The boundaries of sacred and secular encompass all of life, not just a part, declared Van Dyk. Either all of the Christian’s life is “sacred” or it is “secular.” Either all of his life is “spiritual” or it is “natural.” Christians can no longer deny the Kingdom of Christ power in the political sphere. Van Dyk stated, “Wherever we act in obedience to our Lord, the Kingdom of God will come.”
The concluding speech by John A. Olthius was entitled “The Program for Christian Politics.” Olthius opened by stressing some of the Biblical guidelines that norm political life. “Man’s fall into sin did not destroy God’s will for creation.” When Christ arose from the dead, he made it possible for Christians to be agents of reconciliation in all spheres of creation, including the sphere of the state.
God’s will is also expressed in the harmonious structure of creation, in which he wills that man walk in obedience to him. Thus in each area of society—the family, school, business and state—it must be recognized “that the relationships within these areas, the authority structures, are responsibilities which are God-given, and are not derived.”
Ohhius maintained that Christianity is the only world-view which recognizes this authority as coming from outside of creation. Other world-views, which have had important influences in forming culture, place the ultimate authority within creation in one of the individual areas of society. The state, the economic sector, science, or the individual is established as absolute authority within creation. The results have been tension among these various world-views, in turn causing disintegration as seen in our nation today.
In defining the role of the state, Olthius stated that “the state is only one of the temporal structures in society whose task is to open lip [develop] creation. The state must honor the private communities of law such as, the family, the school, and business.” Other world-views deny this shared authority in creation and instead claim “state absolutism,” “individual absolutism,” “absolutism of the instituted church,” “economic absolutism,” or the “absolutism of science.”
“The world-view which has determined American life is Humanism,” Olthius stated. “The individual is absolute and he gives up some of his authority to the state, which in turn protects his rights. However, it is the right of the people to abolish the government and institute a new one. Revolution is built into the American system.” In contemporary America, Olthius stated, this “beginning of individual absolutism has shifted to state absolutism….Life has become politicized. Citizens look to the state for solutions to everything.”
“How can we as Christians contribute to the healing of our society?” Olthius asked. He then posed four possible answers. The first is infiltration into existing parties. But, Olthius stated, this is “like saying, join the Mormon church and be a witness.” Our present political parties are institutionalized. “The body of Christ has neglected this area, so a man who wants to be busy in politics has to go into a party.” The present political parties, according to John K. Galbraith, were never meant to function in bringing together men of irreconcilable views, but now are attempting to do so. Both parties seek to solve their present fracturing with “Democratic socialism,” with both the state and the individual as absolute.
The second alternative which Olthius outlined is complete withdrawal of all Christians from the political scene. This alternative is more serious because, as Olthius stated, it would result “in complete capitulation with no Christian voice in politics.”
The third possibility, that of revolution, “is viable in line with the American Declaration of Independence, but it is not a Christian answer. We just can’t clear the decks and start over,” Olthius stated.
Olthius instead presented the fourth alternative. “We must reject revolution and reform societal structures.” He continued, “We must publish a Christian political manifesto, calling for a rejection of the synthesis of humanism and Christianity, denounce both revolution and the current ‘American way of death,’ call for a Christian third force in politics and issue a challenge to all North American Christians to unite in Christian political action.”
In conclusion, Olthius called for steps to be taken by the Christian community: to develop a body of Christian thought on politics, to make vast use of communication through person to person and mass media contact, to make full use of education, particularly in existing Christian schools, and to enlist Christian talented money-makers.
Then Christians will be ready to confront the “mind of secularism,” on such critical problems as forced solidarity in labor unions, assimilation of blacks into Anglo-American white culture, financing of all public education, wars in which killing people does not change anything, legalized abortion, the present penal and probation system. Olthius pointed again to the desperate need for answers from a Christian political perspective to these and other questions. After urging all present to continue to work and pray to that end, Mr. Olthius concluded the final session of the “Second Christian Congress” with prayer.
Miss Van Til, a student at Dordt College, is secretary for the national office of the National Association for Christian Political Action.
Tn answer to Olthil1s’ question, the members of the Christian Action Foundation decided unanimously to restructure the C.A.F. and clarify its direction toward communal political action. The Foundation reorganized under the name of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CHRISTIAN POLITICAL ACTION. Immediate goals were set to develop a positive body of Christian political thought and to solicit members from among the 35–40 million evangelical Christians within the United States.
The former Christian Action Foundation was organized in the United States in 1966. Its members expressed their concern for the need to speak of the total life-giving power of Christ in the social, economic, judicial, political and educational areas of “the American way of life.”
The Christian Action Foundation had in the past addressed itself to specific issues of crucial importance on the state level. Among briefs presented to state legislatures were those placed before the Iowa, Illinois, and New Jersey state bodies on equality in education for public non-tax-supported schools, and a brief to the Iowa legislature on the freedom to work without compulsory membership in a single monolithic union.
The speakers at the Congress sessions were Dr. Paul C. Schrotenboer, general secretary of the Re-formed Ecumenical Synod and editor of the “International Reformed Bulletin”; Mr. John Van Dyk, professor of history and philosophy at Dordt College, Sioux Center, la.; and Mr. John A. Olthius.
Those attending the Congress agreed that much of the real business of the congress was not enacted in the “business” meetings. Rather, it was during the speeches which were given and the discussions following that the true significance of the Congress emerged. The avowed purpose of the speakers was to begin to form a body of Christian thought and analysis of the contemporary political scene in the United States. Within this framework the importance of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CHRISTIAN POLITICAL ACTION for future action within the political arena should be stressed.
Dr. Paul Schrotenboer addressed the opening morning session of the Congress with an analysis of the current “Crisis in American Politics” as his speech was entitled. He emphasized that any Christian analysis must be primed by knowledge of the law, i.e., the directives of God for life. In the area of politics and statecraft God has decreed that man must work for justice and the common-weal, i.e., the benefit of all.
“It is man’s task to realize in public law and practice this basic law of God. When man devises a form of government that draws the practical consequences of this basic law, then justice prevails and there is a general benefit to all,” Schrotenboer stated.
Biblical justice aids the poor, mistreated, and unfortunate, Schrotenboer emphasized. “God’s law is a source of blessing, even, to a degree, to those who do not accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.” Schrotenboer pointed out that man has failed to develop this basic law of justice in the state unto and through God. As a result , American society is disintegrating. He pointed to this disintegration in three areas: the crisis of authority and justice, the crisis of confidence and goodwill, and the crisis of world view.
In analyzing the present crisis in authority in the United States Schrotenboer noted the present polar dilemma represented on the one hand by advocates of strict “law and order” and on the other by the current dissent and “new left” movement in politics.
“The point is,” Schrotenboer stated, “that neither those who call for law and order, nor those who call for the overthrow of the present order give due regard to God’s basic law and plan. The former tend to identify their system with God’s law, and the latter act like the man of Jesus’ parable who feared neither God nor man…As a result we have a crisis in authority and justice, a crisis of mammoth proportions. It is seen in the campus, in the student movement, in the teaching at the universities, in the public demonstrations and counter-demonstrations.”
Schrotenboer further stated, “To understand the extent of the crisis we are in, we should note that it is more than a conflict concerning authority and justice. It is no less a crisis of confidence; in ourselves, in one another, and in our national destiny.” Americans no longer believe the “American dream” and in spite of the fact that America is polarizing along ideological lines. the present political science fails to recognize this fact and political parties continue to work merely for “practical results” with little difference existing between the principles of the Republican and Democratic parties. “This was done,” Schrotenboer stated, “in the hope that, by not stressing the differing views of politics, we could bring about a grand consensus in a ‘great society.’ THIS PLAN HAS FAILED. We sought to suppress the differences in faith, religion, basic ideas. And we find that dissent, polarization, violence, and frustration are the order of the day. And the nation does not know where to turn.”
In his final point Schrotenboer emphasized, “we will not sense the depths of the crisis we are in, unless we recognize that as a nation we are shaken to the depths of our being in our basic views of man, the world, and God.”
In the past, Christianity and humanism have been mixed in American government because the assumption was made that religion and politics occupy two separate realms. The First Amendment guarantees “freedom of religion” and in actuality claims that religion docs not belong in public life. Christians have been powerless in the midst of the crisis because they have accepted these terms of unconditional surrender.
Schrotenhoer also declared that Christians have not been working politically to present a thoroughly consistent Christian alternative. “To date we do not even have n penetrating and thorough Christian analysis of our history and our situation. We do not have a master plan, not even the rough lines of a blueprint, for responsible and communal Christian political activity. Our religious leaders have no common opinion. The fact is, they call for opposite actions. Some call for complete victory in Vietnam, regardless of the extent of the damage. Others call for a unilateral withdrawal without delay. Some side with the revolutionaries, others with the advocates of ‘law and order’.”
Schrotenboer concluded by stating, “This is the tragedy: the only people in the world who are called the light of the world have no light to give. We who have the promise that we may know what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God do not know where to go and what to do. This is the crisis.
“In such an hour we hold this second Christian congress. We must reflect. We must have vision, else we shall surely perish. We must be inspired and we must together, as a people of God, struggle together until we find a way to put form to this old world in which we live. Struggle until we are no longer satisfied to make a slight correction here and there, but only when we are the formers of statecraft, of beneficial ways of living together. Until justice will become a mighty rushing stream. Do not underestimate the lateness of the hour, or the tempo of change and deterioration, or the desperateness of the situation.”
The stated theme of the “Second Christian Congress” was “Christ’s Coronation in Politics,” emphasizing the need for Christians to exert the power of Christ in the political sphere. Mr John Van Dyk clarified this concept in his address on “The Vision for Christian Politics.”
Van Dyk began by stressing that man was created to exert a culturally formative power in the world, God’s creation. Because of sin this power is distorted and man uses it selfishly and often unjustly. Only through Christ’s redemption is it principally possible for man to exert this power, through Jesus Christ, in the political sphere to bring true justice and goodness.
Historically, Van Dyk continued, Roman Catholicism has identified the ecclesia, i.e., the body of believers with the instituted Roman Catholic Church. Under the influence of Greek and Roman philosophy, boundaries were set within the Christian life; such us those between “sacred” and “secular” and the church and the state. As a result, the power of Jesus Christ was withdrawn from those areas outside the realm of the instituted church, the area which alone was considered sacred. As the historical process of secularization began, the withdrawal of various areas of society from the power of the church also meant withdrawal from the power of the Word of God. “Once humanism took over, the instituted church needed an excuse to exist. The emphasis was placed upon personal happiness and testimony and a search for freedom from worry. Christians developed an introverted religion. In the public arena the Christian community had less and less effect,” Van Dyk stated.
“The task of the instituted church is to arm Christians with the Word of God,” Van Dyk emphasized. “But the sum total of the Christian life is not exhausted by the instituted church.”
The boundaries of sacred and secular encompass all of life, not just a part, declared Van Dyk. Either all of the Christian’s life is “sacred” or it is “secular.” Either all of his life is “spiritual” or it is “natural.” Christians can no longer deny the Kingdom of Christ power in the political sphere. Van Dyk stated, “Wherever we act in obedience to our Lord, the Kingdom of God will come.”
The concluding speech by John A. Olthius was entitled “The Program for Christian Politics.” Olthius opened by stressing some of the Biblical guidelines that norm political life. “Man’s fall into sin did not destroy God’s will for creation.” When Christ arose from the dead, he made it possible for Christians to be agents of reconciliation in all spheres of creation, including the sphere of the state.
God’s will is also expressed in the harmonious structure of creation, in which he wills that man walk in obedience to him. Thus in each area of society—the family, school, business and state—it must be recognized “that the relationships within these areas, the authority structures, are responsibilities which are God-given, and are not derived.”
Ohhius maintained that Christianity is the only world-view which recognizes this authority as coming from outside of creation. Other world-views, which have had important influences in forming culture, place the ultimate authority within creation in one of the individual areas of society. The state, the economic sector, science, or the individual is established as absolute authority within creation. The results have been tension among these various world-views, in turn causing disintegration as seen in our nation today.
In defining the role of the state, Olthius stated that “the state is only one of the temporal structures in society whose task is to open lip [develop] creation. The state must honor the private communities of law such as, the family, the school, and business.” Other world-views deny this shared authority in creation and instead claim “state absolutism,” “individual absolutism,” “absolutism of the instituted church,” “economic absolutism,” or the “absolutism of science.”
“The world-view which has determined American life is Humanism,” Olthius stated. “The individual is absolute and he gives up some of his authority to the state, which in turn protects his rights. However, it is the right of the people to abolish the government and institute a new one. Revolution is built into the American system.” In contemporary America, Olthius stated, this “beginning of individual absolutism has shifted to state absolutism….Life has become politicized. Citizens look to the state for solutions to everything.”
“How can we as Christians contribute to the healing of our society?” Olthius asked. He then posed four possible answers. The first is infiltration into existing parties. But, Olthius stated, this is “like saying, join the Mormon church and be a witness.” Our present political parties are institutionalized. “The body of Christ has neglected this area, so a man who wants to be busy in politics has to go into a party.” The present political parties, according to John K. Galbraith, were never meant to function in bringing together men of irreconcilable views, but now are attempting to do so. Both parties seek to solve their present fracturing with “Democratic socialism,” with both the state and the individual as absolute.
The second alternative which Olthius outlined is complete withdrawal of all Christians from the political scene. This alternative is more serious because, as Olthius stated, it would result “in complete capitulation with no Christian voice in politics.”
The third possibility, that of revolution, “is viable in line with the American Declaration of Independence, but it is not a Christian answer. We just can’t clear the decks and start over,” Olthius stated.
Olthius instead presented the fourth alternative. “We must reject revolution and reform societal structures.” He continued, “We must publish a Christian political manifesto, calling for a rejection of the synthesis of humanism and Christianity, denounce both revolution and the current ‘American way of death,’ call for a Christian third force in politics and issue a challenge to all North American Christians to unite in Christian political action.”
In conclusion, Olthius called for steps to be taken by the Christian community: to develop a body of Christian thought on politics, to make vast use of communication through person to person and mass media contact, to make full use of education, particularly in existing Christian schools, and to enlist Christian talented money-makers.
Then Christians will be ready to confront the “mind of secularism,” on such critical problems as forced solidarity in labor unions, assimilation of blacks into Anglo-American white culture, financing of all public education, wars in which killing people does not change anything, legalized abortion, the present penal and probation system. Olthius pointed again to the desperate need for answers from a Christian political perspective to these and other questions. After urging all present to continue to work and pray to that end, Mr. Olthius concluded the final session of the “Second Christian Congress” with prayer.
Miss Van Til, a student at Dordt College, is secretary for the national office of the National Association for Christian Political Action.