3 minute read
The dynamic relationship between church and state is one of irresolvable complexity. There is no one systematic paradigm or “biblical” formulation that defines what Christians’ political activity should look like, neatly ties off all the loose ends, and is conveniently applicable to all geo-politcal and socio-economic contexts. An approach that met the needs of one century often fails in another. It may produce freedom in one situation, but tyranny in another.1 What we’re left with is the impossibly difficult task of trying to work toward God’s Kingdom in this fallen world.
Of course, some leaders have been more successful than others. Joseph in Egypt contrasts sharply with Saul in Israel. Likewise, some models do appear to be more successful than others. The book that has most influenced my thinking here is Mark Noll’s One Nation Under God? Christian Faith and Political Action in America.2 Noll suggests there have been five general models for the relationship between church and state. The final three are distinctly Protestant, which Noll points out often has far more to do with cultural practices than espoused theological principles.
First, theocracy. Religion and government are inseparable conceptually and in practice. Second, caeseropapism. The intertwining of authority between “secular government” and a “spiritual religion.” Third, Anabaptist. Church and state are kept separate plus Christians withdraw from politics to focus exclusively upon the Church, thereby modeling a better way for society. Fourth, Reformed. Church and state are delineated, but faith leads to participation in all areas of society. Fifth, Lutheran. Church and state are separate because they have different purposes.3
Now rapid-fire assessments. The first is Old Testament Israel. Christ’s Kingdom isn’t geo-political. The second was tried a long time and found flawed. Look no further than the Crusades. The third is attractive. However, I don’t support withdrawing from politics. The fourth is tempting, but the ecclesiastical and political powers that be always prostitute the Bride of Christ for selfish gain. In fact, there’s a fresh wave right now.4 I’ve landed on #5: be ever mindful of our dual citizenship lest we lose sight of our true priorities when commitments conflict, which they inevitably will.
The original beatniks never developed a coherent political framework for countercultural participation in the political sphere. What I’m proposing is beatnik Christianity be “politically Lutheran” where Jesus followers faithfully live within a given society, and work within its political system, without ever seeking to take control and rule over it. Participate in government, but at all times be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Speak truth to government, but acknowledge when/where The Way of Jesus is clear and when/where The Way of Jesus is disputed.5
That’s why I will not condemn figures like Constantine or Calvin despite having strong criticisms.↩
Being as it’s no longer in print, I’m assuming few who will come across this post will have read it. I can’t recommend it highly enough, though. I would offer two asides, though. First, this is one book you truly shouldn’t judge by its cover. There’s this ’80s, Focus on the Family vibe with an American flag and a Christian flag draped over one another. The tone it sets is completely antithetical to the book’s content. Whoever came up with that illustration either hadn’t read the book or was trying to be ironical. Second, the book is so good that I feel it should be required reading before any American Christian is allowed to comment on contemporary politics, let alone vote… I’m only half-joking.↩
To try and reframe those Richard Niebuhr’s classic categories in Christ and Culture, #1 is “Christ above culture,” #2 is “Christ of culture,” #3 is “Christ against culture,” #4 is Christ transforming culture, and #5 is “Christ and culture in paradox.”↩
See: Christian nationalism.↩
Hint: It’s usually clear where people want it to be ambiguous and ambiguous where people want it to be clear.↩
