Religion in Politics #2

President George W. Bush has been touring the Middle East recently, attempting to bring peace to one of the most troubled regions in the world. He seems particularly interested in helping to broker some type of breakthrough deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, admitting that he would particularly like to get something substantive done in his last 12 months in office. That comment in the media made me perk up my ears; if Bush does, indeed, make a concerted effort to broker a peace, it will mirror exactly what President Bill Clinton attempted to do during his own waning months in office. Time will tell whether Bush the Younger is able to accomplish anything longer-lasting than Clinton the Husband did.

There was one ironic moment in President Bush's visit to Israel that seemed so bizarrely out-of-step with the philosophy that his entire administration has been built upon that it has to be mentioned. As a backdrop it is important to remember that the Bush administration is absolutely against a partitioning of Iraq that would give the north of the country to Kurds, a central region to Sunnis, and the rest to Shiites. In that instance, his administration seems to view Iraq the way they (and the rest of America) view the good ol' U.S.A. That view, of course, is that a liberal democracy should be based on an agreed-upon constitution - a political compact that ensures the rule of law, where all individuals have certain rights that are universal across the body politic, and in which political principles serve as the glue that holds all the parts together. It is a political notion that arises straight out of the Enlightenment, and it is absolutely opposed to the notion that nations should be constituted as tribes-writ-large. Seeing one's primary allegiance as to a racial, ethnic, or (heaven forbid) religious group is not just wrong; it is dangerous to the cohesion of the democracy.

But then, of course, there was President Bush, meeting with both Israeli and Palestinian officials and singing the praises of the two-state solution. In a memorable comment that was picked up by every major news outlet (including the NY Times here and CNN here), President Bush said that any peace agreement "must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."

So much for liberal democracy.

The story caused me to reflect on an issue that I often do when the country's political conversation gets ramped up (like, oh, I don't know, during a presidential campaign?). And that is the issue of allegiance. Every person on earth is the member of some type of larger political body that calls for (and in some sense deserves) allegiance. For many of us, that means belonging to a nation-state that is constituted by, and operates according to, the same liberal democratic principles mentioned above. And a whole bunch of us enjoy that. I pay taxes and vote, which I take to be the baseline obligations that a citizen of a nation-state owes to the larger political community. But I also have a dad who was a local politician for 20 years, and a brother who is an active politician right now. I was raised in a political family, and I love chewing the fat about politics over supper. Heck, I even showed up at a Durham County Board of Commissioners meeting earlier this week in an attempt to keep the commissioners from criminalizing homeless people's begging for alms (not surprisingly, the homeless people lost).

But then, Christians also have to face up to another allegiance they have - the one to Jesus Christ and his Church. And it is inevitable that many times in our lives our allegiance to Christ is going to come into conflict with our allegiance to our nation-state, wherever we happen to live. Interestingly enough, Christians embody a peoplehood that is both like liberal democracy and like the Palestinians and Israelis. We are like the latter because we are a tribe, of sorts. As 1 Peter 2 says, we are a "chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation," and although once we were no people, now we are God's people. We are bound by ties of kinship - the brotherhood and sisterhood brought about through the power of the Holy Spirit. And we have a very specific place we belong (the church) and a vision of what the future will hold when our people's destiny comes into fulfillment (the Kingdom of God).

Of course, we are a bit like a liberal democracy as well, in the sense that anyone can become a part of this people. (Of course, it might better be said that liberal democracy is a bit like the church, since that's the way the historical progression came about.) There is no requirement of pedigree, no racial litmus test, no necessary language that must be known. There is only the desire to be a part of this people and to believe in and embody the truths to which they witness. Christians are a tribe, but they want everyone to join them.

All that is just to say that I think it is important, when we watch our leaders globetrotting around and making philosophically muddled statements about the direction our world should take, that we remember that no nation on earth can lay the same claims on us that the Kingdom of God lays on us. If we want to be faithful to God's calling on our lives, which we accepted and responded to through our baptisms, we will remember that and orient our lives accordingly.