John Redekop taught political science at Wilfrid Laurier University and at Trinity Western University where he is still an adjunct professor. He served as president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada from 1991 to 1993, and is the author of three books including The American Far Right (1968) and A People Apart: Ethnicity and the Mennonite Brethren (1987).
In his new book Politics Under God, he challenges the traditional Anabaptist view of government the usefulness of political involvement while acknowledging the ethical superiority of the church. As he sees it, political structures are a gift from God in a fallen world—His plan B—and should be taken seriously as an avenue for Christian work and witness to the extent that Christian discipleship permits. Redekop asks questions such as “What does God require of Christian citizens?” “Can morality be legislated?” and “Can civil governments function according to Christian ethics?”
Were you the first Mennonite scholar to have a PhD in Political Science?
I was first that I know of in Canada. Maybe the first Mennonite Brethren in North America. I think it’s because political activity was deemed to be suspect in Anabaptist circles.
As a youth I was interested in law and politics but was strongly discouraged by some church leaders and my parents. It was not the godly thing to do. I find the same sentiment in John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus—page 200. He calls the political system “a system which we basically reject.” That was the stance of many church leaders and my parents—they voted but did not get involved in any of the issues directly.
You view government as a legitimate God-ordained institution and you’ve noted that some Mennonites in the last decades have taken an active role in politics. How has Politics Under God been received by the Mennonite community?
Generally very positively. At a speaking engagement, someone once said to me “So, you disagree with Yoder then?” because he’s the commonly held standard-bearer in this area.
Through extensive reading and personal interactions with the late Yoder, I believe he is one of the great ethicists and theologians—his views are sophisticated and carefully argued—but as I see it, part of his argument is flawed.
I don’t believe his view of the political realm is substantiated by Scripture. I think if the political system were inherently evil, why would we be instructed to pray for it, be thankful for it, let alone pay taxes or submit to it? I Timothy 2:1 says we should request prayers of thanksgiving for those in authority. Why should we be thankful for something that is evil?
Sure, much is done by government that is evil, but Romans 13 says that government is God’s servant and spells out some of its reponsibilities. I call my approach Anabaptist realism.
In all my years as a political science professor, I have rarely found Mennonite publications that portrays government in a positive way. There are over 160 key passages in the Bible that relate to politics that we shouldn’t ignore. In both the Old and New Testaments we find much affirmation or government.
I believe Anabaptist realism is confirmed by experience and thoughtful reflection as well as biblical teaching even though it doesn’t fit with traditional Anabaptist assumptions.
How have Anabaptists related to government in the past?
Many Anabaptist theologians and scholars have only two or three things to say to government. First, they take a critical stance and simply oppose the system. Second, they have a peace agenda that says the government cannot have a coercive capacity. I believe they are making a very basic error, because government cannot exist without some form of coercion. If you say government must function in the same ethic as the church, that’s a call for anarchy, since you’re removing regulatory police power.
They’ve also forgotten that discipleship is for disciples. Jesus understood that government needs coercive power. That’s why he said in John 18:36—“If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would take up the sword.” Personal conviction is essential for Christians, but public order, maintained by a government possessing
coercive power, is also needed.
Does the Church have moral authority over the state?
The difficulty is with the preposition. The church has moral authority towards the state—to call for justice and various other praiseworthy policies. Time and again, the prophets proclaim justice for the oppressed. There is an amazing confluence of advice for government and the call to heed God’s word.
Some people think that Christians have nothing to say to government because it has a different ethic. But if I have a friend that drinks, I would probably say “don’t drive!” I still have advice to give to those who don’t choose to live by Christian standards.
On my various visits to the Hill, I have noticed that Parliamentarians have been consistently grateful for Christian input. Once I was part of an MCC delegation which had a 15-minute appointment with a cabinet member. He was surprised that we had come to offer our help in dealing with some Aboriginal issues, so we spent most of the evening with him instead. He said “usually when I have Christians, they are out to get something for themselves, or pushing for capital punishment!”
The larger question for me is “what can Christians offer?” What should we say to governments? We must remind governments that they are accountable to God. Jake Epp is a good example of someone who took a Christian ethic straight to cabinet.
In this regard, the established church has often not been a good guide to those called into politics. Usually, they are left on their own and what ends up happening is that they compartmentalize their ethics.
You stress the need to live under one ethic. How is a political ethic based on natural reason compatible with Christian faith?
I differ drastically from Luther and Calvin on this. I don’t think you can switch your ethics depending on what sphere you’re working in. However, part of the Christian ethic is not congruent with part of political ethics. There will therefore always be limits for Christian involvement in the political realm. You participate in politics, as in all other areas in life, to the extent that Christian discipleship permits. There come times Christians might have to resign from their position.
How is citizenship part of Christian discipleship?
Christians should be the greatest advocates for and models of good citizenship. For example, we should be the first and most articulate advocates of the oppressed. We must oppose evil, but thank government for the good they do.
I write many letters to politicians. I do a lot of affirming, but then I also criticize them on occasion. When I criticized Prime Minister Harper on the nature of his very early support of Israel bombing Lebanon, he responded with a personal letter. Politicians welcome such input. They welcome comments from the public because they are faced with so many difficult questions. Not everyone will write a letter to the PM, but we can all be model citizens and we can all pray for our political leaders.
Also, not much is said about the larger issues other than abortion, gay marriage, pornography, euthanasia, etc. Where are Christians when it comes to the environment, war, AIDS and poverty?
In your experience as a teacher of political science, what are some challenges that liberal democracy poses to Christian influence?
The combined impact of freedom and affluence means that many people are indifferent to politics.
This anomie is deplorable. We need more teaching in homes and schools advocating a whole gospel that expresses itself in service. In a liberal democracy there is tremendous opportunity for influence through the private sector, but also through public policy.
Sometimes the evil is so big that only the government can address it and sometimes the injustice is actual government policy that can only be changed by government itself.
Given that government is an agent of God, it should be taken very seriously by Christians and by the church.
