After 6 years, I recently stepped out of a role in an activist organization as the “director of church engagement”. The general job description was to help the evangelical church at large cross the bridge of separation and engage civic government as a mission field in a biblically authentic way. This experience, along with an additional 20 years of intentionally soliciting pastors towards greater engagement AS a senior pastor, at least gives me some qualification to speak to how that engagement and/or ministry might look. I think I am old enough now (66 years old) to recognize that mission strategy in any sphere of life may have some legitimate differences of engagement, yet can still qualify as biblical. Gospel work is not always one size fits all. That said, the Church’s call to spread the Gospel into every arena of life is not rooted in raw pragmatism and personal preference either. There are ecclesiological concerns. As the old saying goes, “The road to Hell is filled with good intentions”.
As I reflected upon my experiences, my mind raced back to a classic and one of the most significant missiological works of the 20th century, “Christ and Culture”, by H. Richard Niebuhr. Niebuhr suggests 5 categories which summarize how Christians have sought to live while faithfully engaging culture. He, in my opinion, superficially touches on the Christian’s relationship to politics and civic government (although in other writings he does drill deeper on this subject). He does however, provide a template by which the discussion can take place. What I am about to share is not Niebuhr’s 5 categories, but rather my personal edit to focus more closely on the categories the 21st century Christian engages the political arena. (Disclaimer: Niebuhr’s categories have significant problems which is a stand alone article itself. My usage is merely a springboard, not an endorsement.)
- Christ against Politics
All expressions of political involvement are viewed with a high degree of suspicion and as irreparably corrupted by sin. They are to be withdrawn from and avoided as much as possible. This is technically called, “Pietism”. The Church abdicates its presence.
- Christ of Politics
Christ of politics sits at the opposite spectrum from the previous one. Political expressions as a whole are accepted uncritically and celebrated as a good thing. In theory, little or no conflict is seen between politics and Christian truth. In practice, the latter (biblical truth) is compromised to accommodate the former (political reality). Partisanship overrides principles.
- Christ above Politics
Christ above politics, a center position between the first two, regards political expressions as basically good, as far as they can go. However, politics needs to be augmented and perfected by Christian revelation and the work of the church, with Christ supreme over both. This view uses the term “partnership”. The Church and civic government can “assist” each other for common purposes.
- Christ and Politics in Paradox
Christ and politics in paradox is another centering option between the extremes. It sees politics (government) as a needful institution that’s been tainted by sin. As a result, there’s a tension in the Christian’s relationship to politics, simultaneously embracing and rejecting certain aspects of it. Perhaps the phrase “necessary evil” is the best bullet point. The Church shows up when its values are at stake, but sees little value in an ongoing connection.
- Christ the Transformer of Politics
Christ the transformer of politics is yet another alternative. It also recognizes politics as initially good but corrupted by the fall. Since Christ is redeeming all of creation, the Christian can and should work to transform government to the glory of God. The ideal is attractive, but the challenge becomes HOW that transformation is effected.
Niebuhr never actually lands in a square, but rather he argues that the relationship is an unsolvable, dynamic tension, suggesting that a “responsible” Christian must navigate between them rather than choosing one. Perhaps he is right, or perhaps he has missed the role of the church/state relationship.
Personally, after multiple decades of ministry, I will admit to traversing for various lengths of time in all 5 categories. Some to my embarrassment and others with some remaining fruit. I do believe in our era which has created the political sphere as the all consuming concern of the citizenry, it would be helpful for the individual Christian to figure out just how much time, attention, money, and emotion one should put into it. Where on the priority list does political engagement rank? How does one think “Christianly” about all the facets of political reality?
I’m not sure how many posts this may entail, but you may want to check-in and process with me. I can tell you this…
The institution of politics is not the hope of the world (or our nation).
Celebrity politicians (along with celebrity pastors) are not always the voices to be listening to.
The Bible may actually have a better roadmap to cultural and political reformation than most of us have been led to believe.
Stay tuned.
No Comments