Christians and Politics: What are the different views?

How involved should Christians be in secular politics? Throughout history, Christians have embraced a number of different perspectives on this issue. These perspectives can basically be broken down into three groups.

First, some Christians believe that one of the church’s jobs is to transform and ultimately control politics. This view has often been labeled the transformational model and has been the dominant model among Calvinists. It was also popular with most nineteenth-century revivalists (e.g., Charles Finney, Dwight Moody) and the church throughout the Middle Ages. Since God is Lord of everything, Christians should seek to manifest this lordship in everything, including politics. They should therefore use any righteous means possible to sanctify the political system and seek to pass laws that reflect God’s will for people as revealed in Scripture.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe that Christians should not involve themselves at all in secular politics or at least should be wary of doing so. This oppositional model has been the traditional view among Anabaptists and is embraced by a number of noteworthy evangelical leaders today. Christ said his Kingdom was not of this world, and he never involved himself in the political debates of his day (John 18:36). Christians are called to be loyal to Christ’s Kingdom alone and to see themselves as citizens and ambassadors of the Kingdom of God living in a “foreign” land (e.g., Phil. 3:20). This present world, including its political systems, is under the control of Satan (e.g. Lk 4:5-7; I Jn 5:19). Therefore, trying to conform it to God’s will is futile and even dangerous. The power of the gospel is found in evangelism, sacrificial service and prayer, not in influencing the political process.

In between these two positions is the two-kingdoms model of church and state. This has been the dominant view of Lutherans and arguably the dominant view among American Christians. Unlike the oppositional model, this model holds that “secular” politics are under God’s authority. Unlike the transformational model, however, it does not hold that the politics of the world should be or can be transformed into a Christian system. Rather, secular government and the church are two ways that God works in the world, and they accomplish different purposes. The purpose of secular government is to keep sin in check and rule over sinners by force. The purpose of the church is to transform sinners into saints who do not need to be ruled by law, and to do so by the power of the gospel and prayer. Christians may or may not get involved in government, depending on their calling from God. But they should not think that any alterations they make in government, however laudable, will further the purpose of transforming lives the way God wants to transform them.

In my own view, there is no precedent in the New Testament to support the transformational model. Moreover, whenever Christians have succeeded in acquiring significant political authority, it’s been disastrous for the Church and society. There is some New Testament support for the two kingdoms model in that Paul clearly distinguishes God’s call to disciples of Jesus (Rom. 12:17-21) from God’s call to governments (Rom. 13:1-4). But there’s no biblical justification for this model’s idea that Christians can be involved in government in ways that may compromise their call to follow Jesus. For example, Jesus tells his followers to love and do good to their enemies (Lk 6:27-35). He doesn’t say to love and do good to your enemies unless you have to kill them as part of your duty to the state!

So I believe the oppositional model is most faithful to the New Testament. At the same time, I don’t think this means followers of Jesus are to have no political influence — which is how this model has usually been interpreted. While Jesus never entered the fray of political debates, everything about Jesus’ life revolted against the politics and social norms of his day. It’s why he was crucified. He was involved in what we today would call “non-violent civil disobedience.” In this sense Jesus was a political revolutionary. And since followers of Jesus are called to imitate him, we should aspire to do the same. We should not think it our job to solve political disputes. But we must consider it our Kingdom duty to revolt against all injustice by how we live.

Further Reading

  • Clapp, Rodney. A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian Society. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996.
  • Colson, Charles. Kingdoms in Conflict. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.
  • Geisler, Norman, and Frank Turek. Legislating Morality. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1998.
  • Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper, 1951.
  • Noll, Mark A., et al. Adding Cross to Crown: The Political Significance of Christ’s Passion. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
  • Stassen, Glen H., D. M. Yeager, and John Howard Yoder. Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
  • Thomas, Cal, and Ed Dobson. Blinded by Might. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
  • Webber, Robert E. The Church in the World: Opposition, Tension, or Transformation? Grand Rapids: Academie/Zondervan, 1986.
  • The Secular Saint: The Role of the Christian in the Western World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

Related Reading

The Hexagon of Opposition

Throughout the western philosophical and theological tradition, scholars have assumed that the future can be adequately described in terms of what will and will not happen. In this essay I, Alan Rhoda and Tom Belt argue that this assumption is mistaken, for the logical contradictory of will is not will not but might not. Conversely,…

Penal Substitution View of Atonement: Did God the Father Just Need to Vent?

In this video blog, Greg outlines the penal substitution view of atonement which says that the Father poured out his wrath on Jesus instead of us so that we could be forgiven. This view is very common and you might even be nodding your head in agreement with that description. However, this view creates some…

Insights from a Technology Fast

Hannah Brencher took a two week technology fast and shared what she learned last week. Of course, if you’re reading this, you obviously make use of technology and we’re not saying that there’s anything wrong with that. (We use it an awful lot too.) But there’s a proper place for technology and it’s good to…

The Political Ambiguity of Caring for the Poor

Ronn aka “Blue” Aldaman via Compfight In case you think the last post was a veiled endorsement for Obama, here’s an article arguing that Mitt Romney is the candidate to vote for if you really care for the poor. Again, there are many schools of thought and it’s overly simplistic to think that voting for…

Christians Should…

The American Jesus blog recently posted a series of reflections from Christians arguing for different ways of voting including, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Jill Stein, as well as an argument for not voting. It’s a little bit disturbing that each post is titled “Why Christians Should…” as this reflects the way we confuse our mission in the…

Tags:

Can Christians serve in the military?

Question: Jesus ministered to military people (e.g. a centurion) and didn’t tell them to leave their military post. So do you think Christians can serve in the military? I believe it’s a Christians duty is to serve their country, aid the wounded, defend the oppressed, protect our families, stand for truth and justice, and kill…