What do we really want in politics?

Reading these fine contributions in anticipation of providing a response reminded me of what Richard Niebuhr described as “the enduring problem” in his book, Christ and Culture.   Niebuhr picked up on Troeltsch’s typologies in The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches.  In short, Troeltsch suggested that when the early church decided that Jesus would not be returning any time soon, they needed to make peace with the surrounding culture and its systems since it looked like we would be around for a while. Troeltsch then categorized churches into either sects or institutions which have left us with enduring typologies today in our attempts to articulate how and why evangelical Christians should be involved in politics which is a main focus of this month’s conversation.

As my good friend Jeannine Brown reminds us, “context is everything.” In light of this, what then do we mean by “politics” or “the political?” What are the various contexts which inform how we think about the word and all it may mean?  And what do we really expect from our political involvement? I’m sure many of us think about the structures of our particular governments, and the ways in which we participate in them through voting, representation and participation.  If this is the case, then Christians are already political in that we share space, pay taxes, vote, and engage in various forms of activism and volunteerism to make our communities better places.   Yet as our friends and colleagues in this series of posts remind us there is something much deeper and more profound when it comes to Christians and politics, especially if viewed through more theological lenses.

Jeannine does this by drawing our attention to notions of “citizenship” based on the scriptural witness.   She asks us to hold out the possibility that national citizenship and Christian commitments may actually conflict at times.  The fact that this conflict is not often felt by many Christians in the United States is interesting, dare I say troubling, to me.  We may need to ask if tensions and conflicts rarely exist, is there something amiss in our Christian commitments and ultimate loyalties? I also appreciate Jeannine’s reminder of the “apples and oranges” in comparing contexts.  Nero’s Rome is quite different than the liberal democracies of various Western countries at this point of the 21^st century.  To claim religious persecution of Christians in the United States is to minimize and flatten out the kinds of social and political repression, persecution and violence which Christians actually experience in many countries today.

Amos provides helpful responses to the questions guiding this post by reminding us that what we think about what it means to “be the church” will correlate with how we ascertain the role of our respective governments, our involvements and our priorities.  I pursued this question in my doctoral studies by examining the causes and roles of religious dissent.  Forgive my reductionistic response (this is after all not a six hour written comprehensive exam!)  but a key aspect of the conflict between Augustine and the Donatists, Calvin and the Anabaptists, and John Cotton and Roger Williams seemed to be differing notions of “church” and therefore of the church’s relationship with and obligations to the “state” (and vice versa).  Randy Balmer has given us necessary historical insights and reminders, particularly about Roger Williams, the dissenting Baptist for religious liberty for all and not just for Christians. Amos wants us to think more deeply of the church as a polis in order to have a more theologically informed understanding of politics that starts with a more robust understanding of “church,” something desperately needed among evangelicals.  Perhaps a weak ecclesiology is one of the reasons why evangelicals have put so much trust in the mechanics of the political system to bring about change…just a suggestion!

Ben Mitchell’s post is helpful for us by highlighting the “everydayness” of our politics.  In other words, “politics” is not something that happens every two or four years (except if you live where I do in the swing state of Ohio).  Christians are always “political” in the ways we live out our faith and the goods which it carries and extends to others. I imagine this notion of the common good may be a stretch for some evangelicals, or perhaps for all us, who in actuality are often motivated by enlightened self-interest.   A particular challenge in a pluralistic and diverse polity such as ours is finding common ground which can lead to a shared common good.  This is an essential aspect of the purpose of politics. How can evangelical faith and practice contribute to the common good for all persons?  I think this question can only be answered if we first stop thinking about how to defend our turf and stop insisting that we get our own way in favor of extending and embodying the expansive love of God for all persons who share space with us.

I very much appreciate the insights of Amy Black, John Hawthorne and Ted Williams. I think they point to much deeper concerns which I have as an ethicist about the involvement of evangelicals in the public sphere and the means and ends of our participation in the political process. I think they are right in pressing us to think just as much (if not more) about the ways we engage in the public sphere and what is reasonable to expect from our political  systems and social engagements, especially in a diverse and pluralistic society with competing notions of what is “good” in our common life.  And as all good conversations should do, the ones in this month’s discussions cause me to pose further questions and musings to keep the conversation going:

• Why do some evangelicals think the only way to be effective is to have access to political power?
• What can we reasonably expect from our political systems?  Do we practice a form of idolatry by assuming too much from our political involvement and from political processes?
• Can we conceive of more faithful ways of being Christians without the expectation that we should “get our way?”
• Should Christian faith be privileged in our political discourse simply because it is Christian?