City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era

---

Tozer, be just as holy an act as sewing a tent, preparing an accounting audit, writing a sermon, or bagging groceries. So long as Christians do the work with a view to glorify God, it is holy, and none of the above are more holy than the other. The authors look at a proper role of the state that they hope all Christians can agree upon while also looking at the proper role of the church within the state. They offer five precepts: Moral duties of individuals and the state are different. Don't confuse Matthew 5 with Romans The Church as a body has different roles and obligations than individual Christians.

Scripture doesn't provide a blueprint for government and public policy. Lewis believed, it's the role of the layperson and not the clergy to help the Church understand and work through certain issues of expertise. I sent this quote to my congressman: Yet to govern is to choose—and those in public life have a duty to develop, as best they can, a sound political philosophy, to engage in rigorous moral reasoning, and to make sure they do not become so captive to ideology that they ignore empirical evidence.

Political involvement of Christians depends on the context they live in. New Testament Christians accepted their non-democratic governments as given, and submitted to authorities. Through democracy, we have the ability to peacefully pursue changes in our society that they didn't have, and perhaps this obligates us to different action. God doesn't deal with nations as He did with Israel. America is not Israel. But step into your average Southern Baptist church on a 4th of July service or "God and Country Day," and you might get confused about that.

Gerson and Wehner summarize the emergence of the evangelical Christian Right and the decline of the mainline denominations, for better or worse. They are clearly not fans of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. They then shift to what they see as the proper role of government: A wise government, constructed around a true view of human nature, thus creates the conditions necessary to allow the great mass of the people to live well and to flourish, to enjoy both order and liberty, to live under the protection of the state without being suffocated by it We count ourselves conservatives in the tradition of Edmund Burke, who averred that God instituted government as a means of human improvement.

Gerson and Wehner agree that democratic capitalism is the system that best allows man to be free and have the best opportunity to fulfill his God-given potential and creativity. The authors conclude the book with a look at rhetoric, how important it is for members of a society to have the freedom to be persuaded: They are capable of reason, and of being reasoned with. What most separates human beings from animals is a moral conscience, the ability to engage in private and public conversations about the human condition.

There are some real weaknesses in the book, so I give it 3 stars out of 5. It's brief, so they don't contain well-defended arguments of either political or moral philosophy. The sources they draw from are also fairly few. I'm reminded that Christians have been dealing with this for thousands of years, so it'd be better to read something written 1, years ago than something written last year. They also ascribe certain economic outcomes to policy they see guided by Christian ethical principles, which I find problematic as economists disagree with them based on the data. Was it welfare reform that reduced poverty or the s technology boom?

Was it Rudy Giuliani's policies that caused crime to decrease in New York, or did he simply benefit from a nation-wide phenomenon of widely debated causes? Economists doubt the effects of policy in these examples, but Gerson and Wehner seem unaware of that. Obviously, the Bush Administration pushing through billions for AIDS-related medicine to Africa had some great outcomes we would not have seen otherwise but other examples they give are not that clean-cut.

Major issues like taxing and redistribution are completely bypassed in this book. They recognize that Christians will debate these issues and that Scripture doesn't give us clear-cut prescriptions. My biggest disappointment would be that it didn't deal much with the various historical approaches. I look at Christian interaction with society from what I understand to be the Anabaptist perspective as James Halteman describes it, which differs from how Gerson and Wehner describe it: Our ultimate allegiance as Christians is to God, and not to a country.

That doesn't mean that we live as isolationists, but rather that we organize ourselves primarily as a church community that serves as a model for the world and invites others to join. We don't try to force others to adopt our ways and we recognize that we cannot legislate morality, but we argue that God's order is the best order for man to fulfill his God-given potential. The Christians and Jews of Scripture were living in occupied territories. They understood the Roman Empire both from repeated history and prophecy to be temporary, but the Church would endure forever.

City of man : religion and politics in a new era

So, I think issues of patriotism and nationalism were very familiar to them particularly Jews but seen as secondary to the importance of the Church-- among which there is no distinction between race or nationality--"neither Jew nor Greek," as Paul said. As politics inherently involves or results in issues of patriotism and nationalism, it's something that Christians need to be wary about, and something that Gerson and Wehner spend little time discussing. If the Church isn't our first and primary concern and focus, then we end up engaging in Jim Wallis-like efforts to try and make the government and the entire population do what the church should be doing.

We divert Church resources to lobbying Congress instead of working to achieve the same ends they want congressional legislation to do. And we engage in endless useless debate about whether initiatives like welfare reform are biblical or contrary. That's my problem with Gerson and Wehner's ambiguity. Aug 03, Garrett rated it liked it.

This makes for fascinating reading, although not for the reasons that the authors originally intended. Before 8 November , it was possible to write a book like this and have it be taken seriously as a prescription for Christians should engage with the world of politics: The authors seem to operate within the a This makes for fascinating reading, although not for the reasons that the authors originally intended. The authors seem to operate within the at the time, not unreasonable assumption that what they wanted was what the preponderance of conservatives wanted.

The oft-repeated observation here is that Trump was able to tap into a socially conservative but fiscally liberal combination of voters that the GOP didn't even realize was there, but Trump's flexibility in matters of policy strongly suggest that his voters were motivated more by anger than ideology.

The authors here make the entirely reasonable mistake in assuming that voters that were angry at the Obama administration were actually interested in conservative governance, and weren't motivated only by anger. It's now possible to make a good case that this assumption was not true.

Product Description

That doesn't mean that the vision that Gerson and Wehner sketch out here isn't a good one; it is. But it's been rejected by the majority of GOP voters. Perhaps evangelicals will be more receptive to it after Trump leaves the political scene. Sep 06, Catherine Gillespie rated it liked it Shelves: This is not to say that good people are absent from politics; there are plenty of principled people on both sides of the aisle including but not limited to my husband!

Religion and Politics in a New Era such a refreshing and inspiring book. Along with so many of their elders, they are looking for something deeper and something better. Both Gerson and Wehner are Christians, and so the book tracks primarily Judeo-Christian perspectives, although I think the arguments would be thought-provoking and illuminating to someone seeking to understand the American political scene in general. I thought it was interesting how the authors explain the rise of the religious left and the religious right, and how many Christians are increasingly disillusioned with both groups.

Overall I think City of Man is good food for thought, and I would recommend it if you are interested in politics. Jan 22, Ben Adkison rated it liked it. I received this book from my brother for Christmas and was initially very intrigued because Tim Keller, a man whom I greatly respect, wrote the forward. Gerson and Wehner the authors of the book are not theologians, rather they are right-leaning politicians who happen to be Christians and care deeply about both faith and politics. The good thing about this book is that it's not the same-ole', same ole' story from two Christians who have wholesale bought an unchallenged, stale Republican vision I received this book from my brother for Christmas and was initially very intrigued because Tim Keller, a man whom I greatly respect, wrote the forward.

The good thing about this book is that it's not the same-ole', same ole' story from two Christians who have wholesale bought an unchallenged, stale Republican vision for how to make this country "God's nation. My one caveat is that they fail to fully address many issues, and despite their intentions to move beyond the mistakes of the Religious Right, at times they still seem a bit short-sighted. A good introduction to the discussion of faith and politics, but a little too brief.

Three of Five Cups of Black Coffee. Jun 12, Justin rated it liked it. The fighting of raging fires requires not contemplation but a fire extinguisher" But how does the Christian respond in an aggravated political environment? Reading this book was timely this election year. I appreciate the authors' suggestions on appropriate tone in political discourse, the significance for human dignity in our borders and outside of them, and our responsibility as Christians and citizens in the Land of the Free to pursue order and ju "Political engagement is not a luxury. I appreciate the authors' suggestions on appropriate tone in political discourse, the significance for human dignity in our borders and outside of them, and our responsibility as Christians and citizens in the Land of the Free to pursue order and justice where we now reside in the City of Man because, ultimately, we are building the City of God, our eternal home.

If one lives in a foreign country without medicines for [disease], or ruled by a cruel dictator, the current policy priorities of the American people and its government matter greatly" Aug 30, Tim Hoiland rated it really liked it. I finished reading City of Man: The central question of the book is one both urgent and timeless: I am challenged by the two authors who are committed Christians and able to reflect thoughtfully and critically on how Christians should think about the role and purpose of government.

While they acknowledge their own "conservative" slant, they see that ideological bias can blind Christians left or right from a biblical approach to policy and how politics is practiced.

They recognize that while there is a proper place and responsibility for government to address justice in the public square, i I am challenged by the two authors who are committed Christians and able to reflect thoughtfully and critically on how Christians should think about the role and purpose of government. They recognize that while there is a proper place and responsibility for government to address justice in the public square, it also faces limits and is not the only social institution that should be actively working for common goals.

Nov 29, Elizabeth rated it it was amazing. A must read for all incumbent and aspiring public servants with Christian faith. It's not a theological book but rather a series of research study perusing the concept of religion and politics. A great book that takes you from history of Christianity movement in the context of our government to how Christians should serve in public service. It doesn't provide you with perfect answers but definitely provides insightful pointers.

Read only to have your eyes renewed from distrust of and hopelessnes A must read for all incumbent and aspiring public servants with Christian faith. People will have to judge for themselves whether we are. And since you raised it, I actually want to spend some time saying what we think that they did well…. Secondly, they were a hugely influential force in the pro-life movement, something that Mike and I are very, very sympathetic to. Third, they were stalwart allies for Israel. You had Roe V. Wade, you had the attempt to regulate Christian schools and so forth, and this was, what we argue, an understandable defensive reaction to this assault.

So we think that they did things well. But at the same time, we feel like there were some mistakes made, mistakes made in theology, and mistakes in tone which hurt their cause, I think which one can argue hurt the Christian faith. I mean, I suspect that Reagan probably would have won. He defeated Carter 44 states to 6. It was an overwhelming victory. You know, I was making notes on City Of Man today on an airplane flying across the country, and the guy next to me thought I was possessed, because I kept making these long notes, because there are pros and cons on both sides.

But the argument is that it is. What you can do is just examine the record and analyze it, and hold it up, and you know, open it to debate and see what people say. Pete, would you set people, give them a brief description of your faith, where you fall on the theological spectrum right now, so people can kind of get a compass reading on you? So I think I would fall under the category of a sort of traditional, orthodox, Evangelical Christian. Okay, and I also want to direct the audience to Ethics and Public Policy Center, probably the preeminent center in America for the kind of conversations you and Mike have here.

You know, I think that when people step back and get away from the push and the pull of daily politics and try and think these things through, most people understand that these are complicated issues. And you know, one of the things Mike and I try and do in the book is, precisely because the religious right was in many ways a reactive movement.

And these are perennial questions that every generation has to apply those principles to the issues of our time. Now Pete, you were in the White House for the entire eight years, I believe. Am I correct about that? But that…people were familiar with the just war theory. And in fact, I believe there were some speeches that were given that addressed that very question. So yeah, this is an issue that we struggled with both as public officials and as Christians. I think people would actually be surprised how often these questions of faith and politics were discussed, at least I can testify for myself, with people within the White Houses.

But rather these very difficult Augustinian questions of proportionality, and of the ability and efficacy…. Is there another one coming, because this is just a beginning. It is, it is short. But I had conversations with people in national security staff, and elsewhere in the White House, about the morality of it, and from a Christian perspective. How do you deal with this? But you know, we went back and forth, and when the archives are revealed and the emails come out, people are going to find some, I hope, interesting theological discussions about some very practical and pressing issues.

So Pete, if the theologians you cite in this book, Karl Barth and Bonhoeffer, and many others, had access to everything that you had access to, and Gerson had access to, do you believe that they would credit the conduct of the war, as it was done by the President and his team, as just?

City of Man: Politics and Religion in a New Era

And different theologians are going to come down on different sides of it. I do know that I felt like, Mike and I felt, and the President feels that the war met the criterion in terms of being a just war. And I think actually when history is written, it will be seen as a war that liberated people and advanced the moral good. And we recognized that at the time. But given what we knew at the time, and what we thought, and I think and hope how this thing is going to end up, I think that the war would be justified on Christian grounds. You know, this is a counterfactual question.

So I think that that would be, I would think that would be the strongest argument. Did the administration, because you write at great length about the abolitionists. I love that stuff, because the abolitionists, of course, were the hard-edge of the rhetorical sword for fifty years.

Product Information

And they are, in many respects, the forerunners of the religious right in the culture wars of the last 25 years. You praise the abolitionists, you have some praise for the religious right but not a lot.

Get journalism built for thinkers like you.

But did the administration do what it needed to do when it came to communicate the moral urgency of the war? I think we did, actually.

So I think we did make the moral argument. The reason that the war went south in terms of public support and political support is that we encountered real difficulties. The post-major conflict portion of the war, when the insurgency began and continued, and we seemed to be losing ground, the country grew tired and weary of the war, and with understandable reason.

People forget now, but there was just tremendous, almost overwhelming pressure, including from Republican leaders, to get out of Iraq. One of the leaders in the Senate came to President Bush and met with him one on one, and told him essentially he has to leave Iraq, because he was destroying the Republican Party.

Item Preview

I think you should go back and read those speeches. Or the Library speech. Oh, the Library speech was a very powerful one. This book is a testament to it. Do you see that level of moral seriousness in this White House? And there is a kind of ruthlessness, an almost Nixonian attitude in this White House, from what I can tell publicly, which I find disturbing. One is that you argue that America was designed to be a nation where all faiths are welcome, not one where one faith is favored.

I think that there were established churches throughout the colonies that remained established. They were slowly disestablished. And that Christianity or Judeo-Christianity was a preferred faith, though others were not to be shut out.

• Building Business Owner Wealth Via Tax Planning (Smart Business Owners Book 1)
• Monitoring, Security, and Rescue Techniques in Multiagent Systems: Proceedings of the International
• Who Really Wrote the Bible?
• Regionalisation, Growth, and Economic Integration (Contributions to Economics)
• Advances in Environmental Control Technology: Health and Toxicology
• AUNTIE GETS TOUGHER (TV FICTION CLASSIC Book 73)
• Fishery Science: The Unique Contributions of Early Life Stages