Can Christians Influence the State without Summoning the Ghost of Constantine?

A Conversation with Scot McKnight

Photo by Ali AOUF on Unsplash

So, can Christians influence the State without summoning the ghost of Constantine in some unholy séance?

Earlier I posted on what I called The Constantinian Conundrum, where I argued that no matter how prophetic on the margins you are, if you seek to influence the State in some way, then you are Constantinian to some degree or other.

Instead of seeking political power, I constantly hear that the church should be at the margins of society, standing up for the vulnerable, showing solidarity with the outcasts, and most important of all, speaking truth to power. Sounds great! However, there is a slight problem with the “prophet from the margins” view of the church. What happens when you speak truth to power … and the power listens?

I stand by my point! If you speak truth to power, then you want to influence the power, and with that influence comes a type of political power.

My dear friend Scot McKnight has written up his own thoughts over at his blog. Scot is great on this because he has had experience with both Anabaptist and Anglican “systems” with different postures towards the State.

Scot offers a great taxonomy of Christ and culture which includes relations with the state. He also draws on some of his previous works to explain things like Christ, church, kingdom and world.

Scot is right that Constantinism (Church supports the emperor) is not the same as Erastianism (Church supports the State regulating religion) which is not the same as civil republicanism (Church engages the state).

So Scot concludes:

So, to Mike Bird I would say this: To call “Constantinian” the common approach of evangelicals to public engagement overstates. I do believe many have a “total control” approach and attitude in their politics, but I don’t believe they have thought through it enough to be any more than an unrecognized Constantinian temptation. Most are some kind of civic republicans engaged in society for the common good with more (today) than a progressive sensibility that we can make the world a better place. For some it would be more Christian or Judeo-Christian while for others it would be more a secularized version. But complete marriage – church backed by state, state backed by church – no, I don’t think that’s on the offing in either the USA or Australia.

I think Scot is right in that not all quests for political influence necessarily result in a nefarious alliance between church and state, i.e., Constantization. It is true, petitioning the state for better treatment for refugees or else pleading the case for the unborn does not make one Eusebius at Constantine’s court. Christian engagement with culture or some kind of advocacy is not necessarily gasping for the levers of power.

However, closely aligning oneself with one particular party in power - whether conservatives or progressives - is the surest way to creep towards a “soft” Constantinian arrangement. I mean, if churches are willing to utterly and absolutely commit themselves to one party, defend their leaders no matter what, justify their policies no matter what, then you might not have actual political power, but you certainly are a cog in the wheel of THE political powers.

Otherwise, Scot makes a good point:

I don’t think it is Constantinian to vote or to be an activist. A Constantinian wants total control. It is totalitarian. Some are tempted but they aren’t thinking through it.

I agree insofar that I don’t think Churches in Australia or America have the remotest chance of ending up in a Constantinian arrangement with “total control.” Despite the Australian media losing their minds over our Pentecostal Prime Minister Scot Morrison, that we are … like … totally … like living in the Handmaiden’s Tale, it’s bogus, we are not even close. There is no prospect of a Constantinization of America or Australia any time soon!

But I do think that there is a possibility in both places of a “soft Constantinism” whereby Churches aspire to be political infuencers or at least be a key member of one political team. That’s true whether you're a conservative or a progressive, republican or democrat, labour or liberal.

For my mind, I don’t think Churches should cease in their civic engagement or political advocacy because of a Constantinian temptation. But, to avoid a soft Constantinianism or a Constantinian creep, we must maintain a healthy case of paranoia against becoming tools of any single political tribe. Christian advocacy must always be non-partisan, conditional, and critical.

Our political witness is best served not by asking for a place at the political table, but by ensuring that, even when invited to speak at the political table, we make it clear that we sit above the table. Invite us to your table if you so wish, but let the political class know this, we will not trade our loyalty for the permanence of such a place! That is because the only table that we call “ours” is the one with Jesus Christ at its head.

Any comments, questions, or thoughts?

If you like the post, sign up for the free weekly newsletter below. Also, for the price of one grande coffee a month, you can get premium content emailed to you every week.