We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.
A traditional Christian ends his prayer asking for the maintenance of true religion and virtue. What else could he pray?
The most important life is the life to come. The most important education is the education for that life. The knowledge that he needs to gain admission to Paradise is found in Christianity. God is the end of all human passion.
Of course, Christians think, live, and love now. Just because one love (religion) is most important does not mean other loves have no importance. Life now is preparation for the full life of Paradise and cannot be ignored. The greater love for God does not prevent the lesser loves, but provides the measn for them!
These lesser loves are training for the greater. This training produces the virtue that characterizes the citizen of the City of God. Virtue is the fruit of the Christian life. Government can make the development of virtue difficult or easy by what it does.
If so, then a Christian must pray for a government that will maintain His true religion and virtue. Is this possible in a pluralistic religious world? Must we pray for a Christian ruler who will encourage the Church directly? Some Christians have thought so and still think so. That has not been the American Christian position.
This difference is reflected in the prayers of American and British Christians. For revolutionary reasons, the prayer for the Queen is absent from the United States prayer book and this has had important practical implications.
God Save the Queen
In the reign of good Queen Victoria, the prayer for the Queen ran:
O LORD our heavenly Father, high and mighty,
King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes, who
dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth ;
Most heartily we beseech thee with
thy favour to behold our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen VICTORIA ;
and so replenish her with the grace of thy Holy Spirit,
that she may alway incline to thy will, and walk in thy way :
Endue her plenteously with heavenly gifts ;
grant her in health and wealth long to live ;
strengthen her that she may vanquish and overcome all her enemies;
and finally, after this life, she may attain ever lasting joy and felicity;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The easiest way to imagine government “maintaining true religion” is directly. This is the model of the sovereign monarch as Defender of the Faith. He or she directly advances the Christian religion governing with the aid of the Bishops as part of the House of Lords. With the restraint shown by British Christians, this model worked well for centuries and allowed for the gradual growth of one of the most free societies on the planet.
Despite this success, the British unwritten constitution has broken down. Will Charles be able to take the throne as Defender of the Faith? Has the British government maintained true religion and virtue? The health of the British Church suggests it has not.
Americans appear to have found a better way. Religion flourishes here, Christianity especially. Government does not tax the Church, but does not aid her directly. Government passes the laws needed to maintain minimum civic virtues, but leaves theological virtues to the Church.
Christianity informs our political decisions, but we have no Defender of the Faith, but a liberator of the Faith. The Church has flourished under the Constitution of 1789. Christianity can inspire politicians and voters, but is not entangled with the Church institutionally. We are maintained by being allowed to maintain ourselves!
We expect our government to maintain religion and virtue by providing the conditions for the Church to flourish. The chief condition is liberty. The best use of liberty by free men is to maintain Christian theology and become virtuous.
If the government does no evil and allow citizens to do good, then it is enough. Theology can flourish in Christian institutions. Our message is true so our numbers grow through strong families and strong testimony. We can participate in government in order to keep this social contract strong.
In practice this is not simple. The more laws a government passes, the more likely it is that it will trespass on the role of the Church. Christians have little fear of a limited government, but must be more concerned about an expansive one.
In a limited government like the Constitution of 1789, Christians need have little fear of rule by friendly non-Christians.
The more laws the government passes, the more government will become entangled institutionally in the promotion of virtue and the punishment of vice. This growing entanglement will create ever more chances for harm to “true religion” and so the Christian must either grow more aggressive or run the risk of persecution.
Traditional Christians are conservatives in favor of limited government, in part, to function well in a pluralistic world. When we have power, we must set an example of limited use so that when we lack it the political favor is returned.
The chief intersection of religion and government (as the prayer suggest) is virtue.
Virtues enable us to live a happy (flourishing) life. Government cannot make people virtuous, but it can provide the space for this to happen.
The three theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity) can only be known by salvation and revelation. Since nobody can be forced to be a Christian, Americans believe the law should allow these religious virtues to grow, but not plant the seeds itself!
Traditionally there have been four civic virtues. Christians have recognized that even the pagans can teach us about them. As a result, they form an area of agreement with thoughtful non-Christians that can be the basis for alliances.
The civic virtues are courage, practical wisdom, moderation, and justice.
Courage is the ability to do what must be done. Practical wisdom tells us what must be done. Moderation teaches us how to do it correctly. Justice is the end of civic virtue . . . it is what the whole thing is for. These virtues are part of Christianity, but are not known only through revelation. They also can be learned by any reasonable Western man.
It is possible to judge political leaders of all faiths on how they display these virtues. When Harry Reid proclaims defeat during a war, he undercuts our courage. When pro-life leaders compromise to win a partial victory now in order to win a full victory later, they teach practical wisdom. When our Congress cannot spend within its means, it is immoderate. When the Supreme Court saves the lives of children in danger from partial birth abortion, they act in the name of justice.
In a diverse nation, Christians are unlikely to have the power to protect themselves without allies. In fact, a failure to find allies can so narrow the Christian vision that they would be unfit to rule such a nation if they found themselves with the power to govern. People who only talk to themselves find it hard to start talking to others when the time comes to do so.
The key is to form broad political alliances that will allow Christians to evangelize, disciple, and carry on their mission.
Can Mormons be Good Political Allies for Traditional Christians?
Mitt Romney is a picture perfect Republican candidate for President. Some on the left have suggested that Romney carries extra baggage: He is a member of the LDS (Mormon) Church. Will traditional Christians vote for a Mormon? Can Mormons be allies?
Traditional Christians believe their faith can inform politics. Other faiths can reach similar conclusions and become allies. Americans are electing the President of the United States not the Patriarch of Antioch, the Bishop of Rome, or the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. There is no Queen, no Defender of the Faith.
Any labeling of Mormons as too “weird” to serve the public sets a risky precedent that will come back to haunt traditional Christians.
Most such attacks on Mormonism are name calling, the result of bigotry or ignorance, but not always. If bigotry narrows the field too much, it is possible to be too open-minded about religion. Is Mormonism too “weird” or “dangerous?”
A traditional Christian should only make political alliances with groups that embrace reason, with a theology with agreeable public policy implications, and with a history of successful participation in the Republic. Fortunately for Romney, Mormonism easily passes these tests.
First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner.
The mere existence of a fully accredited B.Y.U and Mormon apologetic groups settles this question. The Evangelical Torrey Honors Institute has hosted thoughtful Mormons willing to debate their ideas.
Second, the group in question should not make religious claims that will naturally lead to horrific, or at least far out, public policy.
If the Mormon Church ever had views that would have led to weird public policy positions, they are part of its past. The LDS Church has a remarkable record of care for others and support for family values. LDS opposition to abortion and gay marriage are well within the American political mainstream. There is no good reason to think that Mormon ideas will lead to “weird” public policy.
Third, the group should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant.
The Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings.
The Mormon community has an excellent track record on this issue. Utah has been “majority Mormon” for over one hundred years, has a republican constitution, and allows free and fair elections. Mormons have served with honor in both Houses of Congress, in Presidential cabinets, in prominent roles in the Armed Forces, and as cultural and business leaders. Harry Reid is a Mormon and so is Orin Hatch. Both men are more remarkable for being unremarkable than for political “weirdness.”
Traditional Christians are commanded to love their neighbor and so cannot vote their fears or prejudices. Mitt Romney deserves a chance to make his case to traditional Christians without his religion being an issue. Mormonism is not the same as my own traditional Christianity. Despite this, it is the very sort of wrong idea that can make for good political allies or rulers.
There is no reason to doubt that the Mormon Mitt Romney would maintain true religion and virtue by maintaining the Constitution of 1789.
The Constitution has worked well for American Christians and we should be happy to continue under it.