Baptists and Christian Realism
Baptists and Christian Realism
By John K. Burk, Ph.D. Student
University of Edinburgh, New College
At age 27, I am more and more mindful of the political debates that relentlessly vie for the attention of many in my generation. I am also aware that many in my generation are less and less interested in the jockeying of politicians and political parties for favorable position with a majority of the American public. This disinterest no doubt stems partly from a weariness of seeing the stories of political failure that headline our daily news reports. Rancor over wars and rumors of war, disagreements over the inception of life, and arguments about the rights of the homosexual in society all wear on the soul of an individual, tending to lead some to apathy, or worse, cynicism.
For the citizen of a country founded on democratic principles, such apathy is accepted as the right of the individual, though it ought to raise serious concerns about the future political health of the nation. For the Christians of my generation who embrace this apathetic attitude toward political processes, the concern should be much greater.
My doctoral research is focused on Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), perhaps the most influential and poignant political thinker and Christian statesman of the mid-twentieth century. Niebuhr came to prominence in the midst of two world wars and the disaster that was Soviet communism. Although his own political positions changed during the course of his lifetime, Niebuhr is most remembered for his development and articulation of what is known as "Christian realism." The definition Niebuhr gave to this kind of realism is that political activities-activities in which Christians should unquestionably participate-have the ultimate aim of "approximating" justice, given the sinful state of human affairs. The love ethic of Christ expressed in the Sermon on the Mount and evidenced most demonstrably by Christ`s willing acceptance of crucifixion is the ideal for which humans should strive. Nevertheless, it is the "impossible ideal" because of the intractability, inevitability, and incomprehensibility of human sin. Thus, for Niebuhr, the role of human beings is to live in the creative tension between the perverse cynicism derived from the experiences of sin, and the naïve optimism of any generation that believes in its capacity to usher in the Kingdom of God as social utopia. While aiming for the realization of love in our social relationships, the realist acknowledges that the best we will achieve is a temporary justice that will need reshaping and reconsidering as we are confronted by new circumstances and innovations-that is, as we are met with new possibilities for sin.
Recently, CET published an article by R. Hal Ritter, Jr.-a former professor of mine at Truett Seminary-in which he made the case that "the voices of Niehbur [sic], and Hauerwas and Costas all have something to say to who the church is today." [i] I will not try to say anything here about the latter two, but I think Ritter is certainly correct that Niebuhr is vitally relevant today to our church discussions about how the Christian is to relate to society-at-large. However, the project of the Christian realist today is less one about recapturing what Niebuhr said than it is about adopting the methodology Niebuhr employed in his attempts to relate the insights of the Christian faith regarding the human condition to the predicaments in which humans find themselves constantly mired.
To my knowledge, the person who is dedicating himself most fully to this project is Robin W. Lovin, Cary M. Maguire University Professor of Ethics at Southern Methodist University.[ii] Professor Lovin`s view is that new social realities will require new insights from the realist. While Niebuhr`s voice may be a guiding beacon, it is by no means the normative standard on which our moral judgments will be based. In short, Niebuhr`s attempts to understand sinful human nature juxtaposed with the life of Christ can be models for the Christian church, but we must be aware that we will likely arrive at different conclusions in our day than Niebuhr did in his.
If Christians believe, as I do, that we have certain moral obligations to engage political processes, not to shun them, then we must begin to ask ourselves what kind of realities we are facing today. For Baptists, I think this question presents a unique opportunity in light of our traditional understanding of church-state relations. Given the current political atmosphere, it often seems as though Christians are presented with one of two options: either we can divorce ourselves entirely from the political engagements of the day, as many in my generation are doing, or we can seek to Christianize the social order by implementing specifically Christian doctrines for the whole of society. In either circumstance, the position adopted is antithetical to the message of the gospel.
If we seek to remain disengaged from politics, we fail to take seriously the promise of God`s ultimate triumph of good over evil. If we attempt to socialize our Christianity by legislating Christian doctrines, we run the risk of aligning ourselves with corrupted government actions, as has so often been the case for the Religious Right on the one hand, and liberal Protestantism on the other.
For Christians seeking a tertium quid, a way of engaging the present political climate without compromising the hopeful claims of our faith, Niebuhr`s realism is a helpful guide. For Baptists interested in maintaining our historic stance on religious liberty and the relationship of the church to the state, a Christian realism that seeks to deal with present realities truthfully and frankly is an appropriate posture to assume. Baptists have long held to the belief that while the state should not interfere in an official capacity as governor over the church`s autonomy, the church should be free to enter into political debate in the public square. Such a position is consonant with that of the Christian realist. We must remember, however, that the church`s entrance into public debates does not silence the voice of others who do not make the same claim to the Christian faith as we do. Hence, if the success of liberal democracy in America is to continue, the opinions of the Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and atheists will all have to be heard. Only then can a true majority opinion be legitimately established.
As I write, I hear the echo of words from George W. Truett`s famous sermon, "Baptists and Religious Liberty," which he preached from the east steps of the U.S. Capitol in 1920. Truett succinctly captured the spirit of what I am attempting to say here when he stated that, "It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not belong and in whose creed they do not believe."[iii] Notice, though, that Truett did not say that the church should avoid participation in civil affairs. In fact, his contention was that Christians should be the champions of "civil liberties," which requires the direct participation of the Christian in society.
Remembering the concerns of such individuals as Niebuhr and Truett is a clarion call to those of us in the younger generations who will soon find the futures of the nation and church placed in our hands. However, if we are going to be Christians who choose to become involved with the public and political debates of our day, two points of concern deserve mentioning. First, the hope of the Gospel is not to be found in the political process. At best, politics offers a temporary salve to a wound that must be continually redressed. Consequently, attempts to implement the ethic of Christian love into our present political climate will ultimately fail. Instead, the best we can do is to seek justice on behalf of our fellow citizens. In Niebuhr`s words, "In the Christian faith the final law in which all other law is fulfilled is the law of love. But this law does not abrogate the laws of justice, except as love rises above justice to exceed its demands. The ordinary affairs of the community, the structures of politics and economics, must be governed by the spirit of justice and by specific and detailed definitions of rights and duties."[iv] In other words, we as Christians will do well to remember that the science of politics is imperfect and the best we can hope for are "tentative harmonies of life with life." Additionally, we must remember that our hope as Christians is in the "already, not yet" nature of Christ`s Kingdom. That is, while this world is not all that exists, it is what we have been given stewardship over. To abandon the role of engagement with society is to refuse to answer the call of the God who is active in the affairs of humanity.
Secondly, it will behoove those of us in the Christian community to remember that we will never achieve a consensus on the debates de jour. Disagreements will continue about the war in Iraq, policies regarding social welfare, and even the role of religion in the public square. Nevertheless, with the acknowledgement of our own fallibility, we may be able to move forward with a critically realistic appraisal of the world in which we live.
In a post-9/11 world which continues to evolve, I am concerned by the perceived lack of interest in political engagement by many Christians in my generation. Yet, I am encouraged when I read the words of Niebuhr and others in the mid-1900s who sought to vocalize their apprehensions about the societies in which they lived. I am realistic enough to know that the voice of the Christian church may continue to diminish, but optimistic enough to hope that it will not. Only by critical assessment and engagement with the political structures of our day will we avoid the seductive siren songs of cynicism and apathy.
[i] Ritter, Jr., R. Hal, "Politics and Religion in America: How Did We Get Where We Are?" Christian Ethics Today, Volume 11, Number 5, Christmas 2005, 16.
[ii] Cf. Robin W. Lovin, "Reinhold Niebuhr: Impact and Implications" Political Theology, Volume 6, Number 4, October 2005, 459-471.
[iv] Niebuhr, Reinhold, "The Spirit of Justice" in Robertson, D.B. (ed), Love and Justice: Selections from the Shorter Writings of Reinhold Niebuhr, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1957), 25.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
