John Howard Yoder and the Christian Witness to the (Post-Christian) State

When we ask how Christians should relate to the social order around them, the underlying presupposition is that the social order is not “Christian,” otherwise the question wouldn’t arise. Whether or not we regard it as a good thing, there is a growing consensus that we in the West are living in societies that are increasingly “post-Christian.” Which is simply to say that Christianity is not regarded as a publicly authoritative source of meaning and moral guidance for society as a whole.

Lately I’ve been reading some of the writings of John Howard Yoder, the Mennonite theologian best known for his book The Politics of Jesus, and I think some of what he has to say casts a helpful light on issues of faith and politics in a pluralistic society. As someone who regarded attempts to “Christianize” the social order through government power as intrinsically misguided, Yoder gave a lot of thought to these issues.

For Yoder, the life of Christian discipleship is marked primarily by becoming a part of a new community, or polis, that embodies a way of life standing in stark contrast to the surrounding world. To be a Christian is to live in light of and as a witness to the eventual eschatological triumph of God’s rule. This community (the Church) is marked by a new approach to economic life (sharing) and communal decision-making (consensus), and, above all, to the renunciation of violence, even when employed for the sake of a just cause (pacifism).

This is what Yoder means by “The Original Revolution.” In contrast to political revolutions that seek merely to exchange one set of power holders for another, followers of Jesus reject the very idea of holding power and take up the way of the Cross instead. It is a more radical revolution in that it rejects the underlying presuppositions of most politics. As Jesus tells the disciples:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave–just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 20: 25-28)

Yoder elaborates:

What is wrong with the Zealot [i.e. violent revolutionary] path for Jesus is not that it produces its new order by use of illegitimate instruments, but that the order it produces cannot be new. An order created by the sword is at the heart still not the new peoplehood Jesus announces. It still, by its subordination of persons (who may be killed if they are on the wrong side) to causes (which must triumph because they are right), preserves unbroken the self-righteousness of the mighty and denies the servanthood which God has chosen as His tool to remake the world….

This is the original revolution; the creation of a distinct community with its own deviant set of values and its coherent way of incarnating them. Today it might be called an underground movement, or a political party, or an infiltration team, or a cell movement….

When He called His society together Jesus gave its members a new way of life to live. He gave them a new way to deal with offenders–by forgiving them. He gave them a new way to deal with violence–by suffering. He gave them a new way to deal with money–by sharing it. He gave them a new way to deal with the problems of leadership–by drawing upon the gift of every member, even the must humble. He gave them a new way to deal with a corrupt society–by building a new order, not smashing the old.

Thus the primary way in which Christians influence the social order is through a kind of leavening effect. The Church, by embodying an alternative set of social practices, demonstrates that an alternative way of life is possible. While this way of life is intended primarily as a sign of God’s kingdom–which will be brought about by God at the end of time, not by our efforts–it can also influence the attitudes and practices of non-Christians.

This is not a matter of keeping religious beliefs and practices “private” and separate from the “public” realm. For Yoder, the Church is a “public” in its own right. It is the firstfruits of the new creation and shows what the whole world is destined to become.

The primary mission of the Church, then, is to be the Church. But does this allow Christians to seek to influence the State towards adopting Christian positions?

Yoder distinguishes two levels of ethics, one for the Church and one for the State. The body of Christian believers is called to a life of radical discipleship, which requires forsaking violence even if the price is martyrdom. The State, however, is ordained by God to maintain the relative peace and order that allows the Church to go about its business of evangelism. So, in a limited sense, there is a justification for the State’s authority to restrain evildoers and punish the wicked.

However, Yoder carefully qualifies this. The State is still under the authority of Christ and can never be a law unto itself. There are not two moralities, one for Christians and another for everyone else. Christians can and should still seek to influence the State in the carrying out of its police functions, even if they can’t expect that it will adhere to the strict standards expected of disciples of Jesus, which requires faith and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

In an early paper “The Theological Basis of the Christian Witness to the State,” Yoder clarifies:

We do not ask of the government nonresistance; we do, however, ask the most just and the least violent action possible, and taking that advice would mean for the government also an act of faith in the right. We cannot reproach our governments for having a police force; we can hold against them every use of police methods when they are not necessary.

But if the State is not, indeed cannot be, explicitly Christian, on what basis can Christians appeal to the State to limit its violent actions? Yoder here introduces the notion of what he calls “middle-axioms.” These are principles drawn from non-theological insights that overlap with Christian judgments about what is right. For instance, in a democratic society, the Christian might appeal to such values as freedom, equality, or checks and balances when arguing for a particular position. This picture is complicated by the fact that a society like ours contains a Christian residue where many Christian values are at least given lip service in the wider society.

This is not, it should be noted, an appeal to natural law or some kind of universal morality allegedly held by all people of good will. Yoder’s position seems to be more one of making ad hoc appeals to whatever principles have currency in the society in which Christians exist (it might be instructive to imagine what such appeals might look like coming from Christians in, say, an overwhelmingly Islamic society). The idea seems to be that Christians should appeal to the better angels of the wider society, challenging it to live up to its own stated principles.

Moreover, the Christian has no blueprint for the ideal society or “just State” to offer. Rather than offering utopian schemes, Christian social witness should focus on concrete injustices. As Yoder puts it:

…[T]he prophetic witness…always works most effectively when it combats one visible sin at a time, not when it demands the establishment of an ideal order. When, through a confusion with non-biblical lines of thought, the prophetic witness demands an ideal order, it discovers afterward that it has played into the hands of secularizing and demonizing tendencies. When it exposes one injustice at a time, pointing each time to a better way, there can be real improvement in tolerability, and thus in a certain sense progress.

So, the social witness of the Church combines 1) the life of the Church as embodying alternative social practices rooted in the Peace of Christ, 2) non-violent protest when the State exceeds its limited role as the preserver of order and 3) seeking to remedy concrete injustices one at a time without offering an overall blueprint by which to run society.

I think this picture provides a helpful understanding of how Christians can seek to influence the society around them. However, one might offer a few caveats.

First, does the Church’s having an influence on society depend on a prior recognition by the State of the Church’s exalted status as the bearer of God’s new way of life? That is, what voice can the Church have in a society that is officially and publicly “neutral” between competing visions of the good life? Yoder says that “We must begin by repeating firmly that the state, or more generally the organization of society, exists for the sake of the work of the church, and not vice versa.” Is this a truth that the State must recognize?

Secondly, does Yoder ask too much from the Church? He seems to see it as almost an all-encompassing reality for Christians, indeed as a new polis or kingdom. As attractive as this is, how many Churches are actually like this? And would we want them to be? A Lutheran, for instance, would say that the Church’s mission is primarily to be the bearer of the Gospel–announcing God’s forgiveness of sins. I realize that Yoder would take issue with a Lutheran account of just what the Gospel is or entails, but is the Church meant to replace the earthly city?

And finally, is Yoder’s opposition to “Constantinism” based on a partial reading of Scripture? Is it wrong for Christians to participate in the governing structures of society and seek to influence society directly? As Peter Leithart says:

But the question of whether to vote, and how, is really only one small part of a larger set of questions: Should we participate in American politics and society at all, and if so, how? Here, I believe we have clear biblical instruction. Quite commonly in Scripture, righteous men participate fully and wisely in less-than-ideal political situations. Joseph rules next to Pharaoh, Daniel is a high official in both Babylon and Persia, Mordecai has enough access to Ahasuerus to warn him about a plot, Nehemiah is cup-bearer to the king of Persia, and Paul talks about Christians who are members of Caesar’s household. In some cases, the rulers that Jews serve are converted, but that is not always the case. Obadiah, as his name suggests, was a servant of Yahweh; but he was also steward of the house of idolatrous Ahab. Scripture demands that we be uncompromising in the midst of corrupt political regimes; but it does not require that we drop out.

I realize this question is related to the question of Yoder’s pacifism, and this post is already far too long to deal with that issue. Suffice it to say I’m not 100% convinced that pacifism is mandated by the Gospel.

Nevertheless, Yoder offers a lot of food for thought. And his thinking on these matters has influenced a lot of people, not the least of which being Protestant ethicist Stanley Hauerwas, who is as close to being a rock star as a theologian is likely to come.