MEADOR: Santorum view welcome, but flawed

I have two things to say to Rick Santorum.

First, thank you.

Thank you for being an important voice in the American political discourse and thank you for treating my question so respectfully during your speech here Tuesday. You expressed strong disagreement while remaining cordial, something I greatly appreciate and often struggle to emulate. While we may differ on many issues, I couldn't help but admire your charitable but firm treatment of my question and kind words after your speech.

Second, I still disagree.

When you spoke at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, you suggested that Christianity teaches that life is split into two separate spheres – the sacred and the secular. You based this on Jesus's words in Matthew 22:21, which says, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."

However, this reading simply doesn't work.

The verse you quoted immediately follows Jesus asking whose image was on the Roman currency. The implication of his question is that Caesar's image is on the coin; therefore give it to Caesar.

God's image – as taught in Genesis 1 and 2 – is imprinted on human beings. Therefore, human beings should give themselves to God alone, not to political structures as Rome demanded – and this will invariably lead to conflict when the state's interests run counter to Jesus's.

The most basic principle of the text is not the creation of two separate spheres, but rather the principle we should live at peace with the state as much as possible, without ever compromising our commitment to the crucified and resurrected king who saves us.

But when our loyalties do conflict, allegiance to Jesus must always take precedence.

It has nothing to do with your misguided notion of the sacred and secular spheres.

Essentially, you took one verse out of context and built a doctrine upon it. From that ill-conceived doctrine you constructed an explanation for the entire international political climate.

But such poor hermeneutics are almost to be expected from those who endorse the sacred-secular dichotomy, because the Bible actually teaches quite the opposite. Moreover, the sort of political engagement that is endorsed in the Bible completely undermines your myopic, Americanized Christianity.

The only way a belief as subversive of political structures as Christianity can walk hand-in-hand so comfortably with political structures – as it routinely does in the U.S. – is through your unbiblical notion of sacred and secular spheres.

Beginning in Genesis, the creation narrative describes God creating all things – there is no hint of God creating one sphere for sacred activity and another for secular. That concept continues to be absent throughout the entire Old Testament.

When we examine the New Testament, Jesus doesn't teach a split-level spirituality either. Rather, he unflinchingly applies his message to all areas of life. He never avoided addressing the political sphere of the day, referring to the leading local politician as a fox on several occasions.

Indeed, he went so far as to say he was the King of the Jews, a treasonous statement in his day, which explains why he was murdered by the government.

He lived at peace with the political structure as much as he could but never feared offending them. Consequently, he often stood against political structures, not in lock-step with them, as you yourself frequently do.

Continuing on, in Romans 8, Paul explicitly speaks of God's concern with all creation and how all things are made new in Christ. The same language can be found in Colossians 1. And once again, Paul embraces the same radically-subversive Christian message, declaring that Jesus alone is Lord and that Christians cannot bend the knee to the empire in which they live.

Like Jesus, Rome would execute Paul as a seditious traitor.

They would do the same to Peter and countless other early Christians. Persecution of Christians for sedition would continue until the time of Constantine, roughly 300 years later.

The lesson is that politicians who would marry Christianity to a nation-state, as you yourself functionally do, should beware of justifying such action by quoting men the state executed as traitors.

Further, to relegate Christianity to only the sacred sphere of life makes it personally engaging but publicly irrelevant.

It detaches Christian standards of behavior from the public sphere, allowing supposedly-Christian politicians to do things like endorsing – or refraining from condemning – the use of torture.

The American church doesn't need more of your myopic, Americanized Christianity.

Rather, the church must recover its identity as the people of God, who through lives of humble sacrifice bring healing to our world, working from the margins of society inward.

We must unwrap the American flag that currently strangles the cross and learn to live, once again, as a counter-cultural group who serves all people – not just those whose beliefs on economics or political theory parallel our own.

For Christians, the borders surrounding the United States that set it apart from the rest of the world do not exist.

And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no more my enemy than Barack Obama or George W. Bush is. All three are human beings made in God's image who I must love, honor and respect. All three are human beings who should be the subject of my prayers and the object of my good will.

Anything less than that might be typically American, but it cannot with any honesty be called Christian.

Jake Meador is a junior English and History major. Reach him at jakemeador@dailynebraskan.com.