A Model for Christian Political Engagement, Part 2

In the first part of this series, I described and assessed four different models for how the church should relate to the political powers of this world: Christendom, Pietism, Dual Citizenship, and Natural Law.  In this second part, I advocate an alternative model that bears some similarities to the Pietism and Natural Law models, while having its own unique character.^[1]The model I advocate here is very similar to that proposed by John Howard Yoder.  The Christian Witness to the State (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1998), pages 71-73.  The Pietism and Natural Law models are both correct that Christians should abide by the standards of the radical demands of Christian discipleship without compromise, and they are both correct that we cannot expect non-Christians to abide by Christian standards of conduct.  But the Pietism model is wrong to say that Christians should do nothing to engage politically, and the Natural Law model is wrong in claiming that there is a fixed, universal, moral law which Christians can and should impose on all non-Christians.

An Alternative Model

The alternative model I advocate is that Christians should engage socially and politically in order to be a positive moral influence on the non-Christian world.  However, in doing so, they should not appeal to a supposedly fixed, universally accessible Natural Law.  There is in fact only one objective standard of moral truth: the Christian gospel and the demands of Christian discipleship.  However, this does not mean that Christians should attempt simply and directly to impose the standards of Christian ethics on the non-Christian world.  Instead, Christians should assess what are the current moral standards of the particular society they are living in and the laws of its government, and then attempt to influence their society to move those standards just a little higher, just a little closer to the ultimate standard of Christian ethics.

Christian political and social engagement thus must take place on an ad hoc basis.  Rather than trying to impose an ideal political system on any society, Christians must engage politically in a very context-specific manner.  This requires much wisdom and discernment on the part of Christians.  In order to decide where to focus their limited time and energy, Christians must determine both what are the most important moral issues in their society and on which issues they are realistically able to make positive changes in the relatively near future.  Then, they must do the best they can to discern the best way to go about making those positive changes.

Under this model, there is no ideal political system, government, or set of laws.  The genuine standards of morality can only be fully embodied within the church, since genuine morality requires repentance, faith, and love for God, which exists only within the church.  States by definition do not acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ or act according to the methods of His Kingdom.  Thus, a state in reality could only fully align with genuine morality by ceasing to be the state and becoming part of the church.  Thus, there will always be a gap between the morality enshrined in the laws of secular governments and genuine (i.e., Christian) morality.  The only question is how big that gap is.  Depending on the historical context, the gap may be relatively smaller or relatively bigger.  Whatever the moral standards of the society Christians are living in happen to be, the job of Christians is to meet their non-Christian neighbors where they are at and to try to make that gap a little smaller, one step at a time.  

As Christians engage politically, they cannot appeal to a universal Natural Law (which does not exist).  Nor would it be wise for Christians directly and explicitly to appeal to Christian theology (which will not be accepted by non-Christans).  So how, then, can Christians go about convincing non-Christians to change their moral and political views?  Christians can try to find points of contact, similarity, or analogy between Christian morality and the moral views of non-Christians in their society.  They can make arguments from the non-Christian’s own beliefs, moral or otherwise, that they should adopt a certain moral or political view.  They can find creative ways of persuading non-Christians that a higher moral standard, a little closer to the gospel, should be adopted.  Christians must have the wisdom to develop ways of talking about moral and political issues that can speak to non-Christians and help influence them to move a little closer to conformity with the truth of God’s Kingdom.  

For example, the Christian gospel demands that we love all human beings, including our enemies.  With regards to the violence carried out by the nation-state in which they live, Christians should neither give approval and praise to it as a necessary part of this-worldly justice, nor should they engage in a futile effort to get their nation to give up violence completely and start loving its enemies immediately.  Instead, they should try to influence their nation gradually to take steps to start becoming less violent, for example, ending the death penalty, outlawing military violence against civilians, and adopting a less hawkish and jingoistic foreign policy.  

Fundamentally, true morality is only possible if there is repentance, faith in Christ, and reconciliation to God through Him.  Fundamentally, we cannot have any expectation that those outside the church will become more moral.  However, knowing that Christ is Lord and Savior of all human beings, including those who do not yet know Him (I Tim 4:10), we can have hope that non-Christians will become more moral, and we can try to influence them to do so.  This is the basis for Christian political engagement with secular governments.  We should not think that the political and social reforms we accomplish in and of themselves establish genuine morality or build God’s Kingdom.  However, as acts of Christian discipleship, they function as signs of God’s Kingdom in this world, show a little who God is to the world, and draw us closer to Him.  The primary task of the church is to bring about the conversion of human beings to faith in Christ.  But one of its important secondary tasks, as salt and light in the world, is to engage socially and politically to transform the surrounding world to be a little bit more like God’s Kingdom.

Practical Implications

There are important practical implications of the model that I advocate here. First, if Christians cannot rightly have any moral expectations of those outside the church, if there is no fixed standard of ethics that we can assume all non-Christians should recognize and follow, this should create a great calmness in us in our dealings with them.  For example, the Christian will be deeply saddened, but they should not be bewildered or enraged that non-Christians in their society do not recognize that violence against preborn human beings is wrong.  Rather than being filled with frustration and anger, our hearts will rather be filled with pity that their hearts are so darkened as to approve of such great evils.  Rather than rushing to denounce those outside the church for their lack of moral understanding, we can rejoice at the moral truth they do understand, little though it may be by Christian standards.  And even if we are unable to achieve significant social and political reform, this should not cause in us any despair.  For we should not expect that reforming the moral and political views of people who do not know God will be easy or feasible.  The church’s task is not to eliminate evil by its own strength, but to bear witness to the good news that Christ has already defeated all the powers of evil, and that when He comes again He will fully make all things new.  

Second, if there is no fixed sub-Christian standard of ethics for non-Christians, then Christians can never rest content with the moral state of their society and its government.  Christians can never say that their society and its government have reached the highest state we can expect for non-Christians, and then stop trying to get them to move closer to the standards of Christian ethics.  Instead, Christians should never cease to engage in efforts to move their society and its government towards slightly greater conformity to God’s Kingdom.  Now, Christians should not be so naive as to think they will ever be able to fully Christianize their society and its government.  Until Jesus comes again, there will always be some kind of secular political order that does not acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  In this Fallen world, even in a best-case scenario, Christians will always find there is a limit to the moral and political progress they are able to bring about.  But this limit is a result of the weight of sin pulling the world down, and not because there is a fixed moral standard beyond which Christians should never attempt to move their society and its government.  Christians, then, will tolerate aspects of their society and its government that are not in conformity to God’s Kingdom, but they should never give their approval and blessing to these aspects.  Instead, they should always look at the world with an attitude of hope that it might look ever more similar to the Kingdom of God, for the sake of God’s glory.  

Series Navigation

<< A Model for Christian Political Engagement, Part 1