Program / Course 22: Christian Ethics / Lesson 7.3
What you will learn
- Describe H. Richard Niebuhr’s five models of the relation of Christ and culture.
- Explain how Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Kuyper and Catholic social teaching understand the relation of church and state.
- Summarize Orthodox and Anabaptist approaches to political life.
- Identify the main debates about religious liberty, the public use of religious reasons and the danger of confusing a political cause with the gospel.
The big idea
Christians have never agreed on how the church should relate to political life. Some withdraw, some seek to transform society, some hold that church and state have separate tasks under God, and some have sought a close alliance. Scripture supports both respect for rulers (Romans 13) and resistance when they command what God forbids (Acts 5:29). Each model has strengths and dangers. A careful Christian asks what the gospel requires, what prudence advises, and where loyalty to a party or nation may be replacing loyalty to Christ.
Key terms
- Two cities
- Augustine’s picture of humanity divided by what it loves most: the city of God, by love of God, and the earthly city, by love of self. The two are mixed together in history.
- Two kingdoms
- Luther’s teaching that God rules the world in two ways, by the gospel in the church and by law and the sword in civil government.
- Sphere sovereignty
- Kuyper’s idea that church, state, family and other institutions each have their own God-given authority.
- Symphonia
- A Byzantine and Orthodox ideal of harmony between church and state, each with its own sphere, working for the good of the people.
- Religious liberty
- The right to believe, worship and act on conscience without coercion by the state.
- Establishment
- A formal link between a state and a church, as in the Church of England. Many countries have ended or reduced such links.
- Civil religion
- A set of religious-sounding beliefs and rituals centered on a nation, which can borrow from Christianity without being identical to it.
- Christian nationalism
- A term with several meanings, used for views that identify a nation with Christianity or seek privileged public status for it. Its definition and use are disputed.
Background
The New Testament gives several signals. Jesus says, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Paul tells believers to be subject to the governing authorities, who are ministers of God for good (Romans 13:1-7). Peter and the apostles say, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The book of Revelation portrays an empire as a beast demanding worship (Revelation 13). The early church lived without political power, and sometimes under persecution, and developed a pattern of prayer for rulers (1 Timothy 2:1-2), refusal of idolatry and care for the poor.
After Constantine, the church acquired influence, and for centuries Christendom, the close alliance of church and ruling powers, shaped Europe. The Reformation, the wars of religion, the Enlightenment and the growth of religious pluralism led to new arrangements, among them separation of church and state in the United States and a range of church-state relations elsewhere. Today, Christians live in democracies, authoritarian states and places where they are a persecuted minority, and the question takes different shapes in each.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Niebuhr’s five models
In Christ and Culture (1951), H. Richard Niebuhr described five typical answers. Christ against culture holds that the church must separate from a corrupt world, as in many monastic and Anabaptist movements and the early Tertullian. The Christ of culture holds that Christ fulfils the best of human culture, as in some liberal Protestantism. Christ above culture holds that grace perfects nature and that church and society are in an ordered hierarchy, as in Aquinas. Christ and culture in paradox holds that the believer lives under two authorities and in tension, as in Luther. Christ the transformer of culture holds that Christians are to convert and renew society, as in Augustine as Niebuhr reads him, Calvin and Wesley.
The book has been widely praised and also criticized. Critics, such as John Howard Yoder, argued that it treats culture as one thing and that it assumes the Constantinian settlement, and others said that the types are too neat and that real thinkers combine them. Niebuhr himself said that no type is fully right. It remains useful as a way of seeing patterns.
Step 2: Classic models
Augustine, in City of God, held that the two cities are intermingled until the end. Christians are pilgrims in the earthly city, can use its peace and should work for justice within it, but do not expect the state to be Christian in a final sense. Luther’s two kingdoms taught that the gospel is not to be used to run the state, nor the sword to run the church, and that Christians serve in civil roles as a form of vocation. Calvin held that magistrates are called by God to defend true religion and justice, and that lesser magistrates may resist tyranny, a line developed later by Reformed resistance thinkers.
Kuyper, a Dutch theologian and prime minister (1901 to 1905), argued that Christ is sovereign over every sphere and that Christians should organize in politics, education and the press, while respecting each sphere’s own sovereignty. In Catholic teaching, the church claims freedom to teach and to serve and holds that the state has a proper autonomy. Since the Second Vatican Council’s declaration Dignitatis Humanae (1965), the church has taught that every person has a right to religious freedom, a development from earlier positions that favored Catholic establishment in Catholic countries, and one that Catholic scholars still discuss in terms of continuity and change.
Step 3: Orthodox and Anabaptist approaches
The Byzantine ideal of symphonia pictured the emperor and the patriarch as two gifts of God working in harmony. In practice, the church often came under imperial control, a problem called caesaropapism. Orthodox churches in Russia, the Balkans and elsewhere have experienced both alliances with the state and persecution, as in the Soviet period. Many Orthodox theologians today seek to affirm the church’s mission in society while warning against the church’s capture by national or political interests. Some stress that martyrdom and prayer are the church’s basic political acts.
Anabaptist and some other traditions hold that the church is a distinct community and that its political witness is first to be a faithful people. Stanley Hauerwas has argued that the most important thing the church can do for the world is to be the church. Critics ask whether this leaves the world to others, and Anabaptists reply that such witness has itself shaped history. Many Anabaptists today also engage in advocacy and relief work. Christians in this tradition decline some offices, such as military service, while contributing in other ways.
Step 4: Debates and cautions
Several debates are current. One is whether religious reasons may be used in public argument. Some liberal philosophers, such as John Rawls in his earlier work, held that public reasons should be shareable by all citizens. Others, including many Christians and some secular thinkers, argue that all citizens bring deep convictions into politics, and that exclusion of religious reasons is unfair. A moderate view holds that Christians should give reasons others can weigh, while being honest about their sources.
A second debate concerns how closely the church should be tied to a party or movement. Christians appear across the political spectrum, and many have argued that no party fully expresses the gospel. The Barmen Declaration (1934), written by the Confessing Church in Germany, said that Christ is the one Word of God and rejected the claim that any other powers or leaders could be sources of revelation, a statement made against the Nazi pressure on the church. A third debate concerns the term Christian nationalism, which some use for efforts to give Christianity a privileged role in national identity, and others consider a label used unfairly against Christians who participate in politics. Serious thinkers in all traditions warn that a nation or party can become an idol, and also that withdrawal from public life neglects the neighbor.
- Which model does this approach resemble: against, of, above, in paradox with or transforming culture?
- What does it say the church’s own task is, and what does it say is the state’s?
- How does it read Romans 13 and Acts 5:29 together?
- What does it say about the freedom of conscience of those who disagree?
- What danger does it guard against, and what danger does it risk?
- How can it be tested against the example of Christians in other times and places?
Examples
A Letter from Birmingham Jail
In 1963 Martin Luther King Jr., arrested during a campaign against segregation, answered white clergy who urged patience. He appealed to Augustine and Aquinas on unjust laws and to the biblical prophets, and called the church to be a thermostat that transforms society and not a thermometer that records its temperature. The letter is often cited as an example of Christian public witness, though some of his critics disputed his tactics. (Historical example.)
Christians under a hostile state
In Soviet-era Eastern Europe, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant believers faced persecution. Some leaders cooperated with authorities to keep churches open, others resisted and were imprisoned. Later judgments of them differ, and the case shows that public life for Christians can involve hard choices under pressure. (Historical summary.)
A school board vote
A Christian citizen is asked to vote on a curriculum issue. She asks whether to argue from Scripture, from shared values or from practical effects, and whether to join a group that claims to speak for all Christians. Her pastor says that each choice has costs, and that she should pray, learn the facts and avoid treating opponents as enemies of God. (A constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic social teaching holds that the church must proclaim the gospel and defend human dignity, that the state has its own proper sphere, that Catholics have a duty to take part in public life and that religious freedom is a right of persons. The church does not endorse a party, and Catholics differ on policy. The laity are especially called to bring faith into politics.
Orthodox
Orthodox tradition has the heritage of symphonia and also the experience of persecution and state control. It holds that the church should serve all people, pray for rulers, speak against injustice and resist domination by political powers. Orthodox opinions on how to engage current politics vary, and some warn against nationalism that uses the church.
Protestant
Protestant approaches include Lutheran two kingdoms, Reformed transformation and sphere sovereignty, Anabaptist separation, evangelical activism, Social Gospel reform and contemporary pietist caution. Protestants helped to develop modern ideas of religious liberty, as in Roger Williams and the Baptist tradition, and also supported established churches. Differences about politics now often divide congregations.
Secular and scholarly
Political philosophers debate the role of religion in public reason, the meaning of secularism and the limits of religious liberty. Sociologists study how religion shapes political behavior and how politics shapes religion. Some scholars argue that secular democracy needs religious sources of moral motivation, and others that religion should stay out of politics. Both sides include believers and nonbelievers.
Why it matters
Every Christian is also a citizen or subject, and decisions about voting, speaking, serving and protesting are constant. The models in this lesson offer a map for these decisions, and the cautions remind a student that loyalty to Christ may conflict with loyalty to any party or nation. They also help in understanding the news, much of which concerns the relation of religion and politics.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Romans 13 means Christians must obey every government in everything.
Correction: Acts 5:29 and the witness of the martyrs show limits. Traditions differ on what resistance is permitted, from nonviolent refusal to armed resistance to tyranny, but none teaches obedience to commands to sin.
Misunderstanding: Separation of church and state means religion has no place in politics.
Correction: Separation concerns institutions and the freedom of conscience. It does not by itself exclude believers from politics, and there are differing views on the public role of religious reasons.
Misunderstanding: There is one Christian political position.
Correction: Christians hold a wide range of political views and models of church and society. Claims that Christianity requires one party or program should be tested carefully.
Misunderstanding: Withdrawing from politics is neutral.
Correction: Withdrawal is also a political stance and has effects on others. Traditions that withdraw, such as Anabaptists, intend it as a witness, but critics question what is left undone.
Knowledge check
What are Niebuhr’s five models?
Christ against culture, the Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ the transformer of culture. They name patterns of relation between the church and society, from separation to identification to transformation. Niebuhr noted that no type is complete and real thinkers often combine them.
How do Romans 13 and Acts 5:29 balance each other?
Romans 13 teaches that governing authorities are servants of God for good and should be respected. Acts 5:29 says that obedience to God comes before obedience to men, so that commands to do wrong are not binding. Traditions read the two together as supporting obedience within the limits set by conscience.
What changed in Catholic teaching with Dignitatis Humanae?
The declaration taught that every person has a right to religious freedom, free from coercion in matters of faith, based on human dignity. Earlier Catholic teaching and practice had often favored Catholic establishment in Catholic countries. Scholars debate how this development relates to earlier teaching.
What does the Barmen Declaration show about church and politics?
It shows a church refusing to accept another source of authority beside Christ, in 1934, in the face of the Nazi state’s pressure. It illustrates that faithfulness may require saying no to political claims on the church, even while the church continues to serve the neighbor.
Think it through
- Which of Niebuhr’s models seems closest to your own, and what is its main risk?
- How should a Christian speak in public about convictions that others do not share?
- How can a person tell when loyalty to a party or nation is becoming too strong?
- What would faithful political witness look like for a church that is a small minority?
Independent assignment
A model of church and society
In your notebook, write 400 to 600 words. Choose one of the models in this lesson and describe it as its holders would, using at least one historical example and one Scripture passage. Then state its main strength, its main danger and how a defender of a different model would criticize it. Do not state your own party loyalties, and do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.
Further study
- Augustine of Hippo, The City of God Read Books 14 and 19 on the two cities and on peace.
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Read Book 4, chapter 20, on civil government.
- Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) Read the chapter on the laity for the Catholic account of Christians in the world.
- Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3: The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches Read for statements on church and state, including the Augsburg Confession.
- Matthew 22:21 Render unto Caesar.
- Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
- Acts 5:29 We ought to obey God rather than men.
- Jeremiah 29:7 Seek the peace of the city.