The fast-emerging Religious Left contrasts sharply on many issues–from homosexual marriage to socialized medicine–with its longer established competitor, the Religious Right. Yet these two Bible-citing political movements equally have woken up to the realization that there is something intrinsically American about using the Bible as a guide to practical politics. That’s good news, and a blow to secularist orthodoxy.
As I noted on NRO recently, the current debate about immigration signals a major sea change in rhetoric from the Left. Against Republicans who want to get tough on illegal aliens, amnesty advocates like Hillary Clinton have invoked the New Testament image of the Good Samaritan and Matthew 25 on welcoming the “stranger.”
If Mrs. Clinton becomes a presidential candidate in the next national election year, then 2008 will likely prove to be the Year of the Bible. That would please Religious Left gurus (and best-selling authors) like Rabbi Michael Lerner (The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right), Rev. Jim Wallis (God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It), and former President Jimmy Carter (Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis).
When I reported in the book-industry magazine Publishers Weekly on a raft of forthcoming books dealing with the intersection of faith and politics, I found that a large majority–applying spiritual insights to issues related to sex, race, poverty, the environment, you name it–were by religious writers with a definite Left-ward orientation. “Spiritual,” of course, is not a synonym for good, true, or even credible.
Clearly the Religious Left reads books. Is it prepared to make a difference at the grassroots level? Well, this month a new outfit called the Network of Spiritual Progressives drew a thousand activists to a Religious Left teach-in in Washington, D.C.–not enough to fill a megachurch, but still evidence that something important is percolating.
That liberals would contemplate shrugging off their customary secularism is new. But the insight that government and the Good Book go together may be traced back to the beginnings of the American political tradition.
Our country’s Founders were disciples of the 17th-century liberal philosopher John Locke whose major book is the Two Treatises on Government. When Locke’s work is assigned in college classes, the first treatise is usually skipped over. That’s too bad, since it is devoted almost entirely to Biblical interpretation, with numerous citations from the Hebrew Scriptures including learned commentary on the Hebrew language.
Locke’s more pessimistic counterpart in English political theory, Thomas Hobbes, similarly expends about half of his great book Leviathan on drawing out the political lessons of the Bible, contrasting the ideal “Christian Commonwealth” with the “Kingdom of Darkness.” He defined the latter as the condition of “spiritual darkness from the misinterpretation of Scripture.”
Locke and Hobbes followed in the footsteps of earlier thinkers, as Israeli scholars Yoram Hazony and Fania Oz-Salzberger have pointed out recently. When Protestant political theory wished to find a way to cut loose from the Catholic Church and its thinking on the relationship between faith and state, English, Dutch, and Swiss Christian Hebraists from the 16th century on pointed to the Hebrew Bible as the world’s first and best political text.
Philosophers like Cornelius Bertram, Petrus Cunaeus, and John Selden wrote works with titles such as, respectively, The Jewish State (1574), The Hebrew Republic (1617), and Law of Nature and the Nations According to the Hebrews (1640). Christian-Hebraic political thought achieved a practical breakthrough with the English Puritan revolution, which took the Jewish commonwealth described in the Bible as its model. The Puritans later brought these ideas to our shores, declaring that they would found a “New Israel” here. America’s political roots truly lie in the Bible.
Among these thinkers, it was never the intention to simplistically copy Biblical institutions like the Jewish high court (the Sanhedrin), the Jewish king, the Jerusalem Temple with its priests, and so on. Rather, the idea was to discover philosophical principles in the Scriptures that could be translated into a modern secular government.
Those principles included the superiority of a transcendent moral law to any law the government might invent, and the belief that men and women should be held morally responsible for their deeds.
Such ideas, still controversial today, deserve to be discussed openly in public forums, including political ones, with due attention to their source, the Bible, and its proper interpretation. For what separates the Religious Left from the Religious Right is precisely what Thomas Hobbes warned of, the question of how to read Scripture correctly. Religious conservatives and liberals can agree that it is important to get the Bible’s meaning right, while debating what that meaning actually is.
So let the debate begin.
—David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and the author, most recently, of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History.