Church and State - Christ and Culture

Last week as I was preparing for this Sunday's sermon (The Fourth of July!), I was in tortured conversation with some of my preaching colleagues regarding the relationship between church and state. After an hour and a half of conversation, we were still unsettled, perhaps because it is an issue that can't be settled in this life.

I'm not speaking about "the establishment clause" in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. I'm thinking about the broader context, the relationship between Christianity and culture, a concept explored in greater detail, and with deeper insight, by H. Richard Niebuhr in 1951 in his book, Christ and Culture. In this book, Niebuhr described five different ways the church has responded to culture, and elucidates the strengths and weaknesses of each position, without making a value judgment on each one.

I'll try to give a nutshell description of each one, and forgive my oversimplification:

Christ against Culture: This view is one of separatism and can be seen in monastic and sectarian groups such as the Amish. These see the only valid witness of Christian people as one of separation from culture.

Christ of Culture: This view is perhaps the opposite extreme to the more sectarian view - sees the will of Christ in harmony with the highest aspirations of humanity. This view was in great ascendancy during the triumphalism of 19th century Protestantism.

Christ above Culture: This view sees both harmony and disharmony in the relationship between Christ and culture, that the good in culture can be harnessed and ordered in Christ. The Catholic tradition often reflects this view.

Christ and Culture in Paradox: This view sees less harmony and more tension between the desires of Christ and the desires of Culture. There is a rightful role for the culture, but it is distinct from the role of the Christian and the church, and the Christian must never confuse the two. The Lutheran tradition exemplifies this view.

Christ transforming Culture: This view sees culture as sinful but affirms the regenerating effect of the gospel, shaping culture to Christian purposes. The Puritans held such a view, and in more recent history, so did the proponents of the social gospel in the early 20th century.

I can’t say that one view is more “right” than the other view. Each has Biblical support. As a result you will often find respected Christian leaders and thinkers in vocal disagreement on the role of the church in relation to the State. I would argue that, historically, John Wesley would have been a proponent of the “Christ transforming Culture,” position and we Methodists have inherited that tradition.

However, recent voices in Methodism have sounded a more “Christ against Culture,” view, specifically, Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon. I have heard Bishop Willimon diminish the value of exercising the right to vote, for instance, as a Christian witness that we not be caught up in the things of this world. On the other hand, Bishop Peter Storey, who spent his life and ministry in the pre- and post-apartheid climate of South Africa, is a strong advocate for Christians being deeply engaged in the political life of their respective cultures, to bring about justice at any cost.

I have a friend who has been a pastor and seminary professor who also is a mayor. Obviously not Amish.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a voice for pacifism, yet he engaged in a plot to assassinate Hitler, so apparently even individuals can hold two contrary positions at once.

I see churches decorating their lawns with American flags on the Fourth of July (Christ of Culture). And as pleased as I am to be a citizen of the United States, I am not comfortable with that, which means I’m more influenced by some of the other models that Niebuhr described. Still, I humbly admit that I don’t know which view is right. But it helps me understand why we have such differences of opinion within the life of God’s people.

Maybe there are even more variations on the five types that Richard Niebuhr tried to define. I suspect there are. I wonder if we can discern, with any objectivity, the position of Jesus? “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God’s.” That gets us started. I wonder if Jesus had had the right to vote, if he would have? And for whom? Or would he have simply ignored the political process and kept going about his mission of proclaiming good news for the poor, recovery of sight for the blind, setting free the oppressed, and declaring God’s kingdom? Hmmm, can you do all that and ignore the political process?

A modern parable describes a man pulling people out of a flooding river, saving their lives. But then he thinks, “Maybe I should go up the river and see why the river is flooding in the first place?” Saving the individuals, or fixing the cause of the flood, are both valid ways for a Christian to witness to the culture in which we live. Either way has merit. I wonder if we can avoid arguing who is right and each of us live out our calling, as we each discern what that calling is, and let Jesus be our conscience. One thing is sure, we live in the midst of our culture, as Christ did in his. Let me be a witness to the reign of God in the midst of it, as best I can.