In pursuit of Christian radicalism
What constitutes a consistently biblical, radical understanding of the political sphere?
“To use the human is to reject Divine wisdom and divest ourselves of Divine help. To use the Divine is to follow Divine wisdom and to seek and rest upon Divine help. There can be no doubt as to which is the Christian’s duty. Then the Christian most effectively promotes public morality by standing aloof from the corrupting influences of worldly institutions.” — David Lipscomb, 1913
When Jesus proclaimed that a new kingdom was at hand,1 He was providing a direct challenge to the political bodies of the day, and His followers have had to wrestle with the political sphere ever since. Although we modern Christians often prefer to think of our eternal kingdom as somehow separate from anything earthly, we commit a semi-Gnostic heresy in doing so. Believers are called to function as the kingdom of heaven on earth, a fleshly reality, in direct opposition to the claims made by other kingdoms, and yet we manage to be surprised at the idea that “the biblical topic is politics,” or that the biblical types Babylon and Rome might apply to our favorite political party or beloved country.2
As Christians, we don’t have the luxury of ignoring the topic of politics; our religion is a political one,3 albeit a kind of politics that is as much heavenly as earthly and manifests itself in a confounding manner. Each generation of Christians has to wrestle with how to live as a citizen of heaven and an alien in an earthly kingdom simultaneously.
Before we continue: I am not suggesting a specific response to the political. There may be a place for such a thing, but it is not mine or now. Our circumstances are many, and the question of praxis is not one to be answered by any individual. Instead I am relating a particular disposition toward the political sphere that I find biblically compelling over the alternatives. In so doing I inevitably enter murky waters, paths well-trodden by saints and heretics alike, and risk the sin of hubris. So accept or reject my words as you will, and know that I intend no statement about anyone’s place before God.
Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” (Rev 11:15)4
Compromised perspectives - realism and transformationism
There is an inevitable “tension between the ‘already’ (the inauguration of the kingdom some two thousand years ago) and the ‘not yet’ (God’s will not yet fully done on earth as it is in heaven)”5 and any attempt to develop a Christian political theology must recognize it. Realism and transformationism are two perspectives that find support as early as the days of Emperor Constantine and Augustine of Hippo, days when Christians had to face the reality that the “not yet” was taking a lot longer than anyone expected.
For the realist, compromises with the fallen world and its politics are acceptable and lead to effectively living as disciples of Christ while serving two masters. Realist theology found a staunch supporter in Reinhold Neibuhr during the World Wars, when he advocated for American patriotism in response to those who suspected him of sympathy for his fellow Germans. Although he “condemned the theological gymnastics required to reason away Jesus’s teachings of love and non-violence with such artifice as Jesus’s driving out the money changers from the temple”, he nevertheless admitted the “‘ethic of Jesus was not applicable to the task of securing justice in a sinful world’… Or, to state matters otherwise, disciples must honor the realities of the ‘not yet’ and not simply the ideals of the ‘already.’ The ‘already kingdom of God,’ Niebuhr baldly announced, is neither a historical nor human possibility in a ‘not yet’ world.”6
I admit some truth to what Augustine and Neibuhr believed: the politics of Jesus are not very useful for governing the Roman Empire, the Russian, or the American. My question is this: are these empires so valuable that we should compromise on Jesus’ teachings to sustain them? Besides, they will sustain themselves no matter what I do, and I’d rather my politics make me irrelevant by reducing my support than detrimental by supporting their violence. In the words of Henry David Thoreau, if the machine “is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.”7
The transformationist perspective is similar, but attempts to avoid such a stark compromise between human and Godly ethics. Most liberation theology could be placed in this category, the general tenet of which is that Christians should participate in moving the world towards its “not yet” state via typical human methods like legislation, courts, reform, and perhaps even war.
Such a view dates back at least as long as realism, and was especially influential in the formation of American politics. We had a whole new place for a whole new start—never mind its previous occupants—and we could establish the kingdom of heaven ourselves, a veritable Eden, on the frontier. So we tried, and so we failed.
“There are reports from [the early 1770s] of revival preachers promising from the pulpit that ‘heaven is a Kentucky of a place.’” — Robert Morgan
8Richard C. Goode summarizes the view of hopeful American transformationists like Walter Rauschenbusch, Washington Gladden, Richard T. Ely, and Jane Addams: “With the power of state legislation at their disposal, disciples could convert the world into what Christians knew it ought to be…they [realists & transformationists] do agree on one point. Both believe, as Stanley Hauerwas has noted, that ‘Christians must make use of politics to achieve justice in the world’ because this world’s political systems and structures (i.e., civil governments and nation-states) provide the principal path for achieving their visions of justice. Thus, James K. A. Smith—a chastened transformationist—calls for Christians to ‘get over their allergy to power,’ embrace the power they have, and operate within the elite ‘upper echelons of cultural production’ to effect the necessary outcomes.”9
Again, there’s some truth here. We cannot, as disciples of Jesus, turn a blind eye to the injustices fellow children of God face around the world. But what methods are we to use? We believe in an all-powerful God, so why should we compromise on our faith and use less-than-Godly methods? The suggestion to seek worldly power as supposedly enlightened Christians seems to me a frightful trap that has captured many well-meaning (or less so) churches and individuals.
The political theology of the early church - radicalism
“Admittedly, the label ‘radical’ can be alarming and problematic…On the one hand, ‘radical’ refers to the sixteenth century Anabaptist Reformation vis-à-vis the Catholic and Magisterial Reformers of that era. On the other hand, ‘radical’ can also refer to disciples of various eras and traditions who have dug into Christian history to reclaim or restore the ‘radix,’ root, or original genius of the Christian tradition, which defied first-century social and political conventions.”10
My own tendencies toward restorationism, however impossible the ideal, are clear. I am interested in the political reality of the early church despite an apparent chasm between their context and mine as a comfortable American facing no persecution, and find myself drawn to the four general tenets of Christian radicalism as laid out by Goode:
First, the deportment of radicals toward civil governments is generally one of defiance. Consider, for example, Adin Ballou’s 1839 address to Boston’s Non-Resistance Society in which he questions whether Christians need a sovereign state. Does the state offer something the Christian has not already found in a higher, purer form? …Second, radicals maintain that ‘the will to power’ is fallen and misguided. Instead, disciples, in imitation of the kenotic Christ (Phil. 2:5-11), divest themselves of such quests for control…Third, in addition to kenosis, radicals are committed to agape love for the world. Guided by kenosis and agape, many radicals pursue a life of non-violence. Fourth, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount is the definitive word or standard for determining political theology. As with other political theologies, radicals are hardly uniform. In fact, “Christian anarchists” and “pilgrims” comprise at least two subsets within the radical typology.11
Where the realist “strives to fulfill—as best one can—the demands of both the kingdom and the world”,12 the radical “cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government; neither can we oppose any such government by a resort to physical force…we can allow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or injury. The PRINCE OF PEACE…has left us an example, that we should follow in his steps.”13
Where the transformationist believes, at least in practice, “The mission of the church is to redeem the world,”14 the radical recognizes that redemption may be accomplished only by Christ.
The radical position is far from quiet, weak acceptance of the world’s politics, however. It is a taking-on of the prophetic role, no matter how unqualified we may be for such a task. The principalities would like us to be silent, but we cannot:
And Amaziah said to Amos, “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, and eat bread there, and prophesy there, but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom.”
Then Amos answered and said to Amaziah, “I was no prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I was a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs. But the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel.’ Now therefore hear the word of the LORD. (Amos 7:12-16)
One prophetic facet of Christianity might be anarchism. Goode notes, “By means of protest in the public square, the Christian anarchist intent is first to expose the ethics and politics that are uncritically accepted in society. Then Christian anarchists seek to introduce the ‘already kingdom’ as the better ethic. In so doing, they embody the age-old tradition of the ‘holy fool.’ If the realists’ origins goes back to Augustine, and transformationists go back to Constantine, faithful anarchists may trace their lineage back to Diogenes and the Greek Cynics.”15
Another scholar summarizes the radical Christian anarchist position in regard to the state,
[A]s long as Christian anarchists are informed by Jesus’ teaching and example, they act as prophets to society. Their critique of the state and response to it calls humanity forward, inciting it to reconsider its institutions and continuously reform them anew. Where the state (as formulator of positive law) embodies the backward-looking tendency towards juridicalism, Christian anarchism embodies the forward-looking logic of superabundance. The tendency of the state qua state to freeze and become unjust is countered by the tendency of Christian anarchist prophets qua prophets to reinterpret justice through the eyes of Christian love.16
I’m still figuring out what it looks like for someone in my context to live as a radical, but I think it’s an ideal worth seeking. What might it look like in your context?
“Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified.” — Leo Tolstoy
“How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.” — Henry David Thoreau
“hope persists wherever tomorrows beckon; say Hitler’s Thousand Years, or the bourgeois’s stupid notion of progress. The hope is still the same, but the human being (model 1950) tells himself that he can only attain Paradise through the destruction of his enemies…When man finds the foe who stands in his way and who alone has barred Paradise to him (be it Jew, Fascist, capitalist, or Communist), he must strike him down, that from the cadaver may grow the exquisite flower the machine had promised.” — Jacques Ellul
“Power structures—and that includes states—conform to the logic of ‘this world,’ which is, ultimately, the logic of death. Deifying those structures, or claiming…they stand for ‘human nature,’ is nothing else but a rejection of Christian faith.” — Davor Džalto
“We must all become prophets. I really mean that. We must all do something for peace. We must stop this insanity of worshipping the gods of metal. We must take a stand against evil and idolatry. This is our destiny at the most critical time of human history.” — George Benedict Zabelka
e.g. Matt 4:17.
William Stringfellow, An Ethic for Christians and other Aliens in a Strange Land. 1973.
Some scholars, such as William T. Cavanaugh, would go so far as to suggest “there is no such thing as a transhistorical or transcultural ‘religion’ that is essentially separate from politics” (pg 9 of The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict, Oxford Press, 2009).
Biblical quotations are from ESV unless otherwise noted.
Richard C. Goode, Peaceable Pilgrim or Christian Anarchist: David Lipscomb’s Political Theology. In: John Mark Hicks (ed.), Resisting Babel: Allegiance to God and the Problem of Government, pg 82. ACU Press, 2020.
Ibid.
Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience. 1849.
Robert Morgan quote from Boone: A Biography. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2008.
Goode, Peaceable Pilgrim or Christian Anarchist, pg 83-84.
Ibid.
Ibid, pg 84-85.
Ibid, pg 82.
William Lloyd Garrison, Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention. 1838. At the time of writing, it is accessible online here.
Richard T. Ely, Social Aspects of Christianity, pg 53. 1889.
Goode, Peaceable Pilgrim or Christian Anarchist, pg 91. The term “anarchist” is another unsettling one, perhaps more so than “radical”. Importantly, anarchism is but one of several directions the Christian can take their radicalism in, and I do not mean to suggest that all Christian radicals should be comfortable labelling themselves as anarchists. At the same time, we should recognize many of our reservations about the term come from our society’s stereotyping and generally poor understanding of what anarchists believe.
Alexandre Christoyannopaulos, Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel, 2010.
Thanks for this, Wayne; you’ve put to words what I’ve been struggling to express for years now, and given me some sources to dig into to boot!