No small controversy attended the Senate Judicial Committee's recent hearings relative to Judge Samuel Alito's faith and its possible influence upon his performance of duty should his nomination to the Supreme Court be approved. (Similar "concern" was expressed in the committee's preceding deliberations regarding now Chief Justice John Roberts.) Predictably, little attempt was made by those alleging fears of faith's "intrusion" into national jurisprudence to conceal their own endorsement of previous Court rulings reflecting more the agenda of liberal legislating benches than defining of established law.
The questions become considerable at this point. Does an inherent contradiction exist between faith and politics? Should believers be involved in the political process? In what ways and to what extent is the believing community to be "salt in the earth," ad infinitum?
For some, the fact of heavenly citizenship (Phil. 3:20) and call to separation (II Cor. 6:17) mandates the believer's abstinence from such "worldly involvements" as political participation. This has long been the stance of various "pietist/separatist" communities. After all, did not Paul write: "What business is it of mine to judge those without? Is it not those inside the community you must judge? God will judge the others" (I Cor. 5:12,13).
On the other hand, Saint Augustine (to whom various Protestant bodies are in other ways indebted) saw Jesus' directive to, "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (Luke 14:23) as sanctioning the Church's coercion of the outside world. Upon the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity as its official religion, this came to be seen in terms of political authority serving faith's interests. Such would in time lead to the horrors of the Church sponsored Inquisition and other abuses.
Truth is seldom served by radical extremes - Pietist, Augustinian or otherwise. This may be seen, for example, in Peter's exhortaiton to, "submit yourselves to every ordinance of man ["human institution," NASB] for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king, as supreme, or to governors, as unto them that are sent by him" (I Pet. 2:13; cf. Paul's corroborating dissertation of Rom. 13:1-7). At the same time, the early Church was bathed in the blood of martyrs who, in defying authoritative mandate, refused to recant their faith. Indeed, when ordered to desist from preaching the Gospel, Peter himself refused to comply (Acts 4:18-20).
The point is this: Reason applies. As opportunity occasions, believers should readily serve the public good - socially, politically, economically...whatever. When such necessitates compromise of faith or principle, however, the believer is to refrain.
How then to address the "law (primarily currently standing "Roe vs. Wade decision in this case) vs. personal opinion" (i.e., commitment to faith) issue, as in the Committee's hearings? That matters of moral integrity should become concerns of political liability bespeaks the regrettable state to which we have come.
Burl Ratzsch
