Christians in the Public Square: "Realists" vs. "Sectarians"

One of the central issues Christians have to grapple with in considering their political involvement in the world is the theological or moral status of the social institutions they might seek to influence. Preeminently this means the government, but it may also include corporations and other business, non-profit agencies and other institutional actors in society.

There seem to be two competing visions currently holding sway among Christian thinkers. The first position I would associate with mainline Protestants and most Catholics. Its comes in both Catholic and Calvinist varieties, but the essential claim is that the institutions of society are part of God’s good (though fallen) creation, and like everything else they are groaning to be redeemed. What is required is for Christians to “baptize” these institutions and reform them so that they can serve the ends God intends for creation.

On this understanding, the state in particular is ordained to guard and nurture the common good. The use of political force is thought to be morally neutral in itself, and the task of Christians should be to see that it, as much as possible, is used for good. This was the position of Methodist ethicist Paul Ramsey who argued that the judicious use of force could be the expression of Christian love of neighbor in the political realm.

On this view it makes sense for Christians to cooperate with those who don’t share their particular faith commitments. Often political advocacy will take the form of an appeal to natural law, the idea being that Christian morality is more or less continuous with what everyone already knows through unaided reason.

This view, which might be called “realism”, comes in conservative and progressive varieties, but its adherents are united in seeing the basic institutions of society as God-ordained and amenable to progressive improvement.

The alternative vision is associated with a more “sectarian” position that stresses the distinctiveness of Christian morality and the way of life that followers of Jesus are called to. John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas are probably the best-known advocates of this position (though I think it’s fair to say there are differences between them).

The sectarian sees the state and other social structures and institutions as the “powers” referred to by St. Paul. They are under Christ’s dominion, but remain rebellious and will not be fully subdued until the Last Day. The rebelliousness of the powers is displayed in their proneness to violence and reliance upon coercive means. But Christians are empowered to live outside of the domination of the powers.

Adherents of this view are thus more reluctant to become too entangled with state and other institutions. They believe Christians should renounce violence and coercion and are often pacifists. The primary task of Christians is to cultivate a distinctive way of life that will embody an alternative set of social practices such as forgiveness, truth-telling, nonviolence and the sharing of goods. The influence that Christians have on the wider society consists largely of providing an attractive alternative to the world’s ways.

Sectarians do allow for the church to address the powers directly and believe that she should act as the conscience of society, calling the secular state to heed its better instincts and higher principles. But this happens on a pragmatic and ad hoc basis; the sectarian has no blueprint to offer for the just society that could be put into effect by political authorities. (I discussed Yoder’s approach to witnessing to the state in more detail here.)

The “realists” criticize the sectarians for irresponsibly withdrawing from public life in order to cultivate their own garden of virtue. The sectarians respond that they are simply trying to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus; they think the realists have sold out and forfeited their distinctive Christian voice. Moreover, the sectarians would say that the church has the greatest impact on society when it acts as a faithful witness to God’s kingdom.

As Yoder says:

The key to the obedience of God’s people is not their effectiveness but their patience. The triumph of the right is assured not by the might that comes to the aid of the right, which is of course the justification of the use of violence and the other kinds of power in every human conflict; the triumph of the right, although it is assured, is sure because of the power of the resurrection and not because of any calculation of causes and effects, nor because of the inherently greater strength of the good guys. The relationship between the obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not a relationship of cause and effect but one of cross and resurrection.

Both of these positions could be seen as a response to the gradual “de-Christianization” of the West. The realists want to re-assert a natural law morality that they believe provided the moral underpinning of our civilization, while the sectarians argue that Christianity had been co-opted by the “Constantinian” establishment of Christianity as the official or semi-official religion of the West. They see the ending of this establishment as an opportunity for the church to be more authentically Christian.

One might be forgiven for thinking that choosing between these two paradigms is often a function in part of temperament. People of a more “radical” persuasion seem to be attracted to the sectarian option. This includes people on the far “left” wing of Christian thought as well as ultra-traditionalists who emphasize the discontinuity between the church and modern society. Realists tend to be people who are more or less comfortable with modernity and its institutions even if they often strongly object to certain aspects of our contemporary society.

The challenge, it seems to me, is to have one’s political stance informed by cogent theological and biblical reasoning rather than a pre-ordained commitment to a particular political allegiance. I’m attracted to the sectarian vision with its demands for radical discipleship, but I’m also wary of leaving the public sphere to the worst excesses of modernity and the culture of death. And it’s not clear that simply splitting the difference is a possibility either.

What is also not clear to me is where the sectarians and the realists will part ways on specific matters of public policy. When it comes to taking a position on a particular war or piece of legislation, sectarians and realists often seem able to make common cause. Does this indicate that there is less daylight between their positions than they might want to think? After all, both agree that Christians can legitimately seek to influence the conduct of the wider society. I think part of the problem is that I don’t yet clearly understand the full implications of each position.