Is It A Paradox To Be A Christian Engaged In Politics?

Can Christians be simultaneously committed to Jesus Christ and to the fallen and broken structures of our culture? The Christ and culture in paradox paradigm would say, “yes!” After all, we are all fallen human beings and cannot escape our broken world. In Martin Luther's thinking this was due to the fact that Christians are simul justus et peccator--simultaneously just and sinner. So what then does this mean for Christian involvement in politics?

In two of my previous posts, I addressed H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture paradigms and began to ask how Christians are to relate to their culture, especially in regards to politics. First we looked at "Christ transforming culture" then at "Christ against culture." Finding neither one of these 100% satisfactory, I then asked the question of whether the "Christ and culture in paradox" model might be the balance I find in the Scriptures. So let's have a look and see just what this model proposes and what its strengths and weaknesses are.

Perhaps the best way to define this paradigm is that it proposes that Christians can and should be simultaneously committed to Christ and the governmental structure--paradoxically holding to the separation of Church and State as two realms that are mutually exclusive, while believing that both realms are divinely instituted by God to govern in harmony with each other. Niebuhr often referred to people in this camp as "Dualists," who keep Christ and Culture separate while being a part of both. He gives Martin Luther as an example of this way of thinking, and, indeed, among Lutherans it is known as Two Kingdoms Theology.

This lengthy quotation by C. H. Little explains this view quite nicely:

“We Lutherans should honor the State as an institution of God for the regulation of the outward affairs of men, that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives here upon earth. God has given us this institution “for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well” [1 Peter 2:14]. And for the execution of this purpose God has bestowed upon it the sword. The State has authority from God to employ force where this is necessary for the accomplishment of its ends.

The Church also is a Divine institution, but its realm is quite different from that of the State. It is limited to spiritual affairs. It touches matters which the State cannot reach -- religion, conscience, the thoughts and intents of the heart. God has entrusted it with the means of grace and has laid upon it the obligation to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments. The Church’s work is in a word evangelization. The Church has no sword but the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. She employs no force, but uses only the persuasive power of the Word. Church and State observing their appropriate spheres should dwell together in harmony. But the Reformed conception of the Church as a theocracy is strong; and the idea that people may be made righteous by governmental agencies has found a lodging even among Lutherans. And especially when some issue, like prohibition, comes to the front, representing itself as a moral issue, we find Lutheran bodies joining them in bombarding the government in the name of the Church to enact such legislation. They seem to think that the chief duty of the Church is to reform the world and set it right. They fail to realize that the Church in thus seeking to invade the province of the State is removing the only guarantee that the State may not someday reverse the process and invade the sphere of the Church by endeavoring to regulate its internal affairs.” (From Disputed Doctrines [Burlington, Iowa: Lutheran Literary Board,1933], pp. 88-90.)

The "Christ and culture paradox" or Two Kingdoms Doctrine seems like a good solution at this point, since it realizes that there will always be sin in government (because government is made up of sinful human beings), and that the Church is a presence of God's grace in the world that will effect change. Though it realizes the tension between our faith and sinful politics, it "looks only for resolution between the tensions" at Christ's return. Until then we are dual citizens who need to respect the sovereignty of both realms.

However, I, among others, believe that this model tends to separate Christian faith and the world in which we live. Operating within this model, Christians could tend towards viewing their convictions as personal and not work towards change in the world, allowing the political world to run by its own rules. Mr. Little describes the Church’s role as Word and Sacrament, but wouldn’t that include bringing the reality of those truths to bear upon our world, including the structures that control our everyday lives. It was because of the Gospel that men like William Wilberforce worked tirelessly to change the laws of England against slavery. John Wesley preached numerous sermons that called for the Gospel to call into question unjust laws and work for their transformation. We are whole people—not dual people. How can we serve two masters?

While I agree that Christians cannot and should not use force to evangelize, nor look to political structures and answers for transforming our world into the coming Kingdom of God, I do believe that the Church has a responsibility to be a light to the nations in such a way that “they may see [our] good deeds and glorify [our] Father in heaven” (see Matthew 5:14-16).

In Luther’s day, both politics and the Church looked very different than they do in our present context. Kings and Popes still ruled. The common people had little to no voice in the workings of either institution. So, I ask my Lutheran friends how living in a republic with voter responsibilities and rights plays out in the current workings of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine. I personally don’t see it as the best solution, but I would enjoy hearing from you on just how a Christian is to engage the culture—particularly politics.

Please leave a comment and let me know what you think.