Assessing whether a Christian denomination’s formal
discipline is being used for religious or politically-ideological purposes is
fraught with difficulty. Certain governmental policies, such as genocide,
clearly violate Christian teaching, such that government officials charged with
implementing such policies could legitimately be sanctioned on religious grounds without it being
thought that a political or partisan difference
is the actual basis of protest. As the harm to others in a given policy
lessens, the specter of ideological opposition as the actual motivator
increases as a possibility. In 2018, 640 United Methodists filed a complaint to
their church charging U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions with having violated
the Church’s Book of Discipline, its code of laws and social principles, on
account of the alleged “child abuse, immorality, racial discrimination, and ‘dissemination
of doctrines contrary’ to those of the United Methodist Church.”[1]
Sessions had been tasked with implementing the U.S. immigration policy of
separating children from their parents at the border. At the time of the
complaint, over 2,000 children of illegal aliens were being held by the U.S.
Government as their parents were being prosecuted.
From a political standpoint, the separation may have served
as a deterrent to potential illegal immigrants as well as a practical means by
which the adults could be prosecuted. The moral harm in the separations is
clear. For Christians, the morality factor must be put up against Jesus’s
teachings and example. It is highly unlikely he would have supported separating
children from their parents. In fact, he pointed to the innocence of children
as being like the Kingdom of God.
For his part, Jeff Sessions pointed to Paul’s dictum in
Romans 13 to obey civil authorities. Jesus himself said to give what is Caesar’s
to Caesar. Sessions’ defense is flawed, however, because obeying the
authorities would apply to the illegal immigrants who are Christian, rather
than to the authorities themselves. What would Jesus say to a Christian authority concerning harm to
others through a government action or policy?
The answer may depend on the grievousness or extent of the
harm to others. Surely Jesus would disown any of his followers involved in
perpetuating the NAZI holocaust in Germany. Separating children from their
respective parents involves less harm than would killing the parents or their
children, but the harm is still very significant to both parties. Sessions
could point out that the parents risked this harm by crossing the border
illegally. Even so, the question for the Christian is where Jesus would stand on
a civil official implementing a policy of such harm. I contend that Jesus would
have rebuffed such an official. How Jesus rebuffed the rich man, who would not
part with his wealth to follow Jesus, can be taken as a model or indication. You can keep your power or money, but you
cannot follow me if you do.
In terms of money, Jesus’s stance toward the rich man is a
very strict view, which would be modified in Christianity from the Commercial
Revolution on.[2] In particular, the good use of even just part
of a fortune would come to justify being wealthy. Similarly, could the good use
of political power be said to legitimate holding civil power by a Christian?
The difficulty especially concerning governmental power is what counts as good,
for partisans have different answers, even different ideals or stressed values.
The 640 Methodists may have objected to the good that Sessions saw as coming
from the policy. In his view, that good is the order that comes from a nation
of laws; illegal immigration hampers or detracts from such good because of the
lawlessness itself as well as the associated culture of disrespect for laws.
Would illegal immigrants suddenly respect and obey traffic laws in Arizona
after having presumed that the immigration laws do not apply?
In short, as soon as we drift away from “What would Jesus
do?” to consider the good use of political power, we open up the problem of
different political ideologies, each of which can be said to have some version
of the good in mind even if harm to others is in the means. What would Jesus
say to Jeff Sessions? This is what his pastor should focus on, rather than
wading into political waters that can easily be twisted one way or the other,
and can belie legitimate religious points.
From the latter perspective, the harm in the action of the policy itself is at
issue. Would Jesus accept one of his followers assuming a government post that
involves separating children from their parents?
