Politics has always been something that I never really took an interest in. But since bioethics, one of my main interests, is often intertwined with political and jurisprudential issues, I figured that it was about time that I started studying it. Until recently, my main source of political knowledge came from television news stations such as CNN, Fox, and NBC. I happened to stumble upon Francis Beckwith’s new book, Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft (IVP, 2010) while searching for an introduction to politics from a Christian perspective. 
As it turns out, politics is a general term that covers a large number of various sub-disciplines. These include political theory (The study of the nature of government), comparative politics (The study of other political systems), political economy (The study of how politics and the economy relate to each other), and public law (The study of how different entities relate to each other). Chapter one deals with these various divisions within politics.
In the following chapters, Beckwith covers the relationship between the Christian citizen and liberal democracy. In Matthew 22, Jesus instructed that because the image of Caesar was present on the coin presented to him, we have a duty to obey earthly governments. To disobey government, which is an institution established by God, thus equates to disobeying God himself. Implicit in this, however, is the other realization that because the image of God is present on us that we also have a duty to obey God. Thus, while Christians are subject to government authority, it is permissible in certain circumstances to disobey governments which are at conflict with Biblical values.
Beckwith also correctly notes that in some situations, it is permissible to support non-Christian candidates for political office (Mitt Romney, for example). Christians “must not ignore their commitment to justice and the common good when assessing such a candidate.”
He notes that Aristotle’s idea that “Statecraft is soulcraft” is crucial to a Christian understanding of politics. Beckwith defends what he calls a “perfectionist view of liberty and the human person,” which is the idea that “liberty is not merely the right to do good and that the role of government is to advance the common good. It is called perfectionism since its defenders maintain that human beings share the same nature by which we can know what sort of goods, institutions, habits and actions help the human being fulfill his proper end or perfection.” In scrutinizing the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists, the popular understanding of the separation of church and state is found lacking. Because the government’s purpose is to advance the common good, it is permissible for it to endorse religious practices which aid in this task while simultaneously striking down other practices (Such as those of cults) which do not advance the common good.
Several arguments in favor of secular liberalism are also tackled and found inadequate. I found his treatment of Robert Audi’s secular reason argument to be particularly helpful. The division of reasons into the categories of “secular” and “religious,” of which the former is treated as fact and the latter is treated as mere subjective opinion, is illusory. ”At the end of the day, a reason is weak or strong, true or false. Thus, ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ are not relevant properties when assessing the quality of reasons people may offer as part of their arguments.” Highlighting a point made by Thomas Aquinas, Beckwith writes that “The difference between objects of faith and objects of reason… is not in their status as objectives of knowledge, but in how the knowledge is acquired by the human mind.”
Finally, Beckwith ends with a great chapter on the moral argument for the existence of God, which serves as a handy apologetic for the Christian faith. Though I do wish Beckwith could have covered more content in this relatively short book, this is an unreasonable expectation from an introductory text. Instead, Beckwith provides a helpful list of recommended books.
I strongly recommend Beckwith’s book for any Christians who are interested in a solid introduction to politics.
I think he misunderstands the use of “secular” in politics; it tends to refer to religious neutrality, rather than specifically to atheism. Religious neutrality is important in government because it protects the right of the people to practice freely whatever religion they may choose. Religious neutrality does not mean “atheist” or “anti-Christian” – it means that the government does not legislate on a religious basis, it does not hold one religion to be superior to another or deserving of special treatment, and it protects the rights of all citizens of all religious equally.
The point is not that “religion” is seen as subjective opinion, it’s nothing to do with that. The point is that religion is personal, and politics is national/global. Politics is about how people are governed, and their religious choices are separate to that; they are a personal choice that the government has no business involving itself in.
A government stepping in to put a stop to a cult is an example of the government performing its job as the protector of citizens natural rights – it does so from a position of religious neutrality. It is not the governments job to legislate on a religious basis. Lerrrr
You should check out Kingdoms in Conflict for this topic as well. Chuck Colson doesn’t use so much factual argument as he does in How Now Shall We Live in Kingdoms, it’s more the results of his observations and experience regarding the relationship and correct positions of religion (specifically Christianity) and government and politics.
Excellent book. matthew