Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action [Paperback]

J. Budziszewski (Editor), Michael Cromartie (Introduction), Jean Bethke Elshtain (Afterword)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0801031567 | ISBN-13: 978-0801031564 | Publication Date: June 1, 2006

In this work, J. Budziszewski examines evangelical political thought over the past fifty years through four key figures--Carl F. H. Henry, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and John Howard Yoder--to argue that, in addition to Scripture, the evangelical political movement should be informed by the tradition of natural law. David L. Weeks (Azusa Pacific University) responds on Henry, William Edgar (Westminster Seminary) responds to the Schaeffer section, John Bolt (Calvin Seminary) comments on Kuyper, and Ashley Woodiwiss (Wheaton College) offers remarks on the Yoder portion. Jean Bethke Elshtain (University of Chicago) provides the afterword, summarizing the dialogue and offering her own observations. In addition, the book includes an introduction by Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

J. Budziszewski (Ph.D., Yale University) is professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the author of numerous books, including the best-selling How to Stay Christian in College, Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, and What We Can't Not Know.

Product Details

• Paperback: 224 pages
• Publisher: Baker Academic (June 1, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0801031567
• ISBN-13: 978-0801031564
• Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 5.5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,069,389 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Helping Christians think about political involvement, December 4, 2006

By 

William Muehlenberg (Melbourne Australia) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action (Paperback)

The role of evangelical Christianity in the public arena is a contentious and hotly debated topic. How should evangelicals engage with politics, culture and society? Should they? What are some biblical principles for the way in which faith should inform and interact with the public square?

These are some of the important questions addressed in this helpful volume. In it, J. Budziszewski, a University of Texas professor of philosophy and government brings together a group of experts to discuss such questions. They look at four major evangelicals who have carefully addressed the issue in the past century: Carl F.H. Henry (d. 2003), Abraham Kuyper (d. 1920), Francis Schaeffer (d. 1984), and John Howard Yoder (d. 1997).

In the first half of the book, Budziszewski provides an introduction to an evangelical approach to political and social involvement. It must of course be based upon Scripture. But he reminds us that Scripture does not provide an exhaustive nor complete set of instructions as to how this is to take place. He does lay our some biblical principles, but says they need to be supplemented by the natural law tradition, a favourite theme of his as found in his earlier works.

He then offers his own summary and assessment of these four influential evangelical thinkers. The second half of the book contains the thoughts of 4 experts who reflect on what Budziszewski had to say about each figure.

Henry of course is a wise choice in such a volume, as he was in many ways the dean of evangelical theologians. He founded Christianity Today and was a prophetic voice in urging the evangelical world to regain its social and political voice. He is arguably the most important American evangelical of the past century.

Abraham Kuyper was a remarkable figure in the Dutch reformed tradition. He was a newspaper editor, a founder of a university, a gifted theologian, and Prime Minister of the Netherlands. His neo-Calvinism took the form of a "principled" pluralism, which influenced many other Christian thinkers, especially in America.

Francis Schaeffer may be the best known of the four. His L'abri ministry in the Swiss Alps had a great influence on thousands, while his important writings impacted millions. He was an early Protestant culture warrior, urging fellow evangelicals to get involved in the crucial issues of the day, such as abortion.

Finally, Yoder represented the Anabaptist wing of evangelicalism, and his 1972 The Politics of Jesus was widely read and hugely influential. His call to radical discipleship, non-violence and his rejection of all forms of coercion helped many to think about Jesus in a new light.

Budziszewski and the four authors assessing these four evangelical leaders, all find strengths and weaknesses in their approaches. All four have greatly shaped and impacted contemporary evangelical thought. All have much to offer us, but none seemed to have the whole picture, or the whole answer. There various emphases present us with much to reflect on and interact with.

Budziszewski feels that while all four made significant contributions to Christian political theory, they all underestimated the role of general revelation, and what we can learn from natural law. The four experts interact with him on this point, and the result is a lively and learned interchange of ideas.

A concluding afterward by Jean Bethke Elshtain nicely ties it all together. In her remarks she reminds us that in a fallen world, no one approach to politics will be fool-proof, and all Christian attempts to interact with society and the political order will be less than perfect, less than ideal. Thus we need to be humble in what we can expect from the political process, and our Christian understanding of it.

This is a very helpful volume addressing some important issues which have divided evangelicals and frustrated many believers. While it will not answer all questions nor solve all problems, it will shed much light on these vital issues, and help evangelicals move forward in this crucial area.

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Skillful Presentation of Evangelical Political Thought by an Outsider, July 28, 2007

By 

Baroque Norseman (Louisiana) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action (Paperback)

Budziszewski, J. Evangelicals in the Public Square. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. 218 pp.

Evangelicals have come out of political hiding. Whatever faults they may have, they have captured the minds and hearts of the majority of American Christians. Despite some shallow appeals to political action--for instance, the less promising elements of the Moral Majority--Evangelicals were forced to draw upon older intellectual streams, notably those of the Reformers. It is Budziszewski's contention that for all the good Evangelicals have done in politics, they have harmed themselves by failing to draw from the natural law tradition (37). Budziszewski outlines four major thinkers as representative of the Evangelical political tradition: Carl F. Henry, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and John Howard Yoder.

Budziszewski's Analysis
Budziszewski launches into a 100 page essay dealing with the pros and cons of the Evangelical political tradition. He begins with Carl F. Henry. Henry's notable achievement was sounding the trumpet for Evangelical engagement with his The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, uneasy because it had no voice to say to the world. Henry was quick to point out that the biblical message involves both personal regeneration and social transformation. Budziszewski, however, critiques Henry on the grounds that Henry's system, while allowing for the possibility of general revelation, in practice denied it. With this downplaying of general revelation comes a denial of natural law. And if natural law is denied, on what grounds will Henry engage the secular man? Budziszewski objects that Henry's call for Evangelical action amounts to little more than "evangelize." Henry could appeal to the "shared conscience" but in the next breath said that conscience applied only to the regenerate (53-54).

Budziszewski then turns to Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper's most notable concept--sphere sovereignty--led him to posit a "principled pluralism." Kuyper argued that human reality is divided into God-ordained spheres: family, school, church, state. No one sphere has dominance and authority over the other. This is to protect the liberty and freedom of conscience of those within the spheres. So far, so good. Budziszewski, however, gives a telling critique of this move. Kuyper posits two principles concerning man's relation to the state. 1) No citizen may be compelled to remain in a church he considers mistaken and 2) different churches must be granted legal standing (67). If Kuyper is speaking of "churches," the point is granted. But if Kuyper is speaking of "religion," then we must demur. After all, on what grounds would we prohibit Satanists from practicing their religion?

Next we move to Francis Schaeffer, with whom most Evangelicals will identify. It is hard to critique Schaeffer, given the man's love for the lost and for culture. Budziszewski focuses much of his critique on Schaeffer's political ethic expressed in A Christian Manifesto. Here Schaeffer, following Samuel Rutherford, argues that when Caesar goes beyond his authority Christians are to, in increasing levels of intensity and in this order: 1) protest in the public square, 2) flee to different lands, and finally 3) resist by armed force led by the lesser civil magistrate. Budziszewski critiques this along the lines that it presupposes a Constitutional government found in Western countries. Furthermore, given the American context, if Congress has refused to impeach the Supreme Court by legal means, what guarantees they will do so by armed means?

Finally, Budziszewski dialogues with John Howard Yoder, the Anabaptist theologian. Yoder argues for a church-centered political theory. Budziszewski is most critical here. Yoder doesn't seem to answer the question of Romans 13, given his commitment to pacifism. Yoder wants to posit a good creation with good structures (as he should), but given Romans 13 and the fact that God commanded wars in the Old Testament, how can one then critique Just War Theory and the use of the sword? This is Budziszewski's best analysis.

After this essay follows four rejoinders by four scholars. In my opinion, William Edgar of Westminster Seminary had the best essay ("Francis Schaeffer and the Public Square"). I do not think that Schaeffer had the strongest political ethic, but Edgar's response is most enlightening. In short, he agrees with Budziszewski's construction of Schaeffer. He defends Schaeffer on resistance saying that we need a vague resistance ethic, since not all cases are clear-cut. While this may appear to dodge the issue, it is actually wisdom. Edgar then focuses on Budziszewski's contention that Evangelicals, particularly presuppositionalists, have downplayed natural law and general revelation. Edgar, a student of Cornelius Van Til, says this is the bedrock of the presuppositional apologetic. We can appeal to general revelation and the unbeliever's use of it because we maintain that the unbeliever can only interpret it rightly through "the lens of Scripture." Furthermore, general revelation doesn't deliver what its advocates promise. Unbelievers distort the truth, not just special revelation (185).

Pros and Cons
This book, like most of Budziszewski's work, was well-written and to the point. Budziszewski skillfully exploits holes in arguments. He has done us the favor of pointing out our weaknesses where we would miss them. He shows how we often take general revelation for granted. However, this does not necessarily conclude a natural law, as Edgar has pointed out. Sure, one can appropriate truths from general revelation. I think the problem, and Budziszewski implies this, is that Evangelicals have posited and either-or position on Scripture and natural law. Will this book convince you of natural law? No. Does it make a good case for natural law? While that is not the point of the book, it can encourage Evangelicals to see for themselves whether the same truths are found in general revelation that are found in special revelation.