John Kerry - actually not a theocrat.

Now normally I let my cobloggers have all to themselves the topics that they've stalked and brought down - I can do my own hunting, after all, and there's a biggggg blogosystem out there - but this one I'm interested in, not least because it's fascinating to see just how different Kerry's recent Scripture quoting looks from the other side. Edward's opinion can be found here... so now let's talk a little bit about the Epistle of St James.

Unfortunately, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia seems to be down, so we're going to have to go with (I presume) the Anglicans about the origin and purpose behind this book of the Bible. Short version: it's a matter of some debate about the author, some more debate about whether it was penned in opposition to Pauline beliefs and no debate whatsoever that it was written to edify individual Christians and exhort them to personally back their faith with deeds. Please note the word 'individual': it'll be important later.

Now, Roman Catholic I may be, but I was sent to every Vacation Bible School within ten miles of my house when growing up, which has left me with the ability to use the word 'evangelical' and not sound like I'm swearing and a preference for the NIV Bible. The passage in question:

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

A strong statement. One that, to my shame, I don't follow better.

But note that it is an instruction to the individual (there's the word again). I'll let La Shawn Barber take it from here:

James wrote his epistle to Jewish believers, "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad", exhorting them to "count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience", one of my favorite verses.

He urges the believers to be doers of God's word and not hearers only. A believer is saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, but that faith manifests itself through action or works ("fruit").

James gives guidance on how individuals, not governments, can evaluate their faith to determine whether it's living or dead. It is the personal works of believers that James has in mind in this passage. It wasn't addressed to Caesar.

If Kerry were a Christian, he'd know that the biblical standard of the test of faith doesn't rest on whether poor people exist or teenagers are killed in the streets. Using taxpayers' money isn't a work of faith.

What you do as a professing Christian, i.e., using your own money or time to feed the poor, would be considered "works." Does Kerry see the distinction?

I will grant that Ms. Barber is being judgemental about Senator Kerry and his faith, but unless we assume that Kerry had no idea of the true context of the passage that he quoted it is hard to conclude otherwise than that he is advocating that taxpayer money be used to validate the faith of the citizens of the United States. The specifically Christian faith of the specifically Christian citizens of the United States. There is a word for this kind of policy, and it's theocratic.

Which is the reducto ad absurdum of this entire argument, of course - much as I'd enjoy (in a shameful sort of way) tossing the theocrat epithet at folks like Kerry and Pandagon and see if it stuck, obviously the former at least wasn't calling for a explicitly Christian state. Occam's Razor suggests that a more familar answer - Kerry's just saying what he thinks people want to hear - is the more high-probability scenario.

Which is why I changed the title before posting this.

Comments

[bleh]

Did any of that training happen to include Jesuitical instruction in casuistry? This post makes me feel like I'm reading a Scalia opinion: you know the answer, the only mystery is what tack he'll take to get there.

Here's another possibility, much more likely than any you suggest. Kerry is merely pointing out that Bush's claims to be a "compassionate conservative" and a pious Christian are sharply at odds with his policies.

That a close historical reading of the biblical text indicates that the admonition was probably directed at individuals detracts not a whit from its moral force or its applicability to this situation.

To suggest otherwise is to say that government's moral responsibilities are completely divorced from individuals', or that a politician's official moral views should be completely different from his personal ones.

[Moe Lane]

"Did any of that training happen to include Jesuitical instruction in casuistry?"

Why no, but thank you for insulting my motives in the first paragraph - nay, the first sentence - of your response. I always appreciate it when people don't pretend.

[kenB]

It is the personal works of believers that James has in mind in this passage. It wasn't addressed to Caesar.

The same could be said of the entire new testament -- I always flinch when I hear some quote from a gospel or epistle used to support or oppose a political opinion, on the left or the right.

OTOH there's nothing in the NT one way or the other about the proper role of government in creating a just society (unsurprising given the political context of the time), so those who wish to bring their faith to their politics must extrapolate from the text somehow. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable exercise, though of course it has to be done with care.

[Moe Lane]

"The same could be said of the entire new testament -- I always flinch when I hear some quote from a gospel or epistle used to support or oppose a political opinion, on the left or the right."

I can understand that attitude; it's alarmingly easy for bad things to happen when people start using religion as a yardstick to measure other people's behavior. One reason why I don't bring it up, much.

[bob mcmanus]

There is I think at Yglesias today a discussion of the Catholic Church and politics which concluded that the Church in Southern Europe has been historically more tolerant of repressive regimes. Included was discussion of political positions the Church has publicly taken, abortion and the death penalty as examples.

I am trying to remember what sort of official positions the Church has taken on social welfare policies. Encountered recently a official line something like "Poverty should be addressed locally according to the principles (or application) of Distributive Justice." I was impressed.

[Phil]

To suggest otherwise is to say that government's moral responsibilities are completely divorced from individuals', or that a politician's official moral views should be completely different from his personal ones.

John Kerry certainly seems to think the latter is true, since he defended his Catholicism and his pro-choice stance as, "American politicians don't tell the Church what to do, and they shouldn't tell us what to do." So, I guess you'll criticize that statement next. Oh, wait -- no you won't.

Me, I just despair of living in a country where the two major party candidates for President are suddenly running on the basis that the other guy isn't a good enough Christian. Really bodes well for us atheists.

[Paul Cella]

OTOH there's nothing in the NT one way or the other about the proper role of government in creating a just society (unsurprising given the political context of the time), so those who wish to bring their faith to their politics must extrapolate from the text somehow.

It is true that Christ is largely silent on political philosophy; but when his (very raw) statements concerning it do come, they come like thunder. Consider "render unto Caesar." Never has political philosophy been so transformed with such economy of words. Even the Greeks did not really have this insight: Socrates was executed for impiety.

[Edward]

Socrates was executed for arrogance. They would have easily let him live if he hadn't stood on principle.

[Saint Fnordius]

Phil, you wrote:
John Kerry certainly seems to think the latter is true, since he defended his Catholicism and his pro-choice stance as, "American politicians don't tell the Church what to do, and they shouldn't tell us what to do." So, I guess you'll criticize that statement next. Oh, wait -- no you won't.

I can see where you're coming from, as it's something Catholics themselves can be confused about: personal faith is seperate from church dogma. Kerry's statement reinforces his belief that politicians should follow their personal moral compass, and not take orders from some pastor, bishop or cardinal. The quoted Bible passage and the statement you quote are fully compatible.

(Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic Discordian episkopos, but I was raised as a Catholic.)