The Global Politics of Jesus - Part 2

Mar 19, 2024

Nilay Saiya
The Global Politics of Jesus: A Christian Case for Church-State Separation
Oxford: OUP, 2022.

In my last post, I offered a positive appraisal of Nilay Saiya’s neo-Anabaptist case for the separation of church and state. As much as I like his concern to remove the church from the seduction of political power, I do feel like his proposal has several deficiencies.

First, Saiya has a peculiarly minimalistic view of the state’s role as to be exclusively concerned with containing the effects of sin and administrating justice.[15] I have heard this view voiced in America among small government libertarians who argue that government exists only for national defence and law and order, whereas the roads, schools, parks, and hospitals should be operated by private enterprise. I know of no serious biblical commentator who regards Rom 13:3-5 as limiting the function of government to the administration of justice.

Second, Saiya’s own view is really “detachment premium” with a prophetic voice at a distance. Saiya’s Anabaptist sympathies are apparent here even as he tries to make sure the separation of church and state is not absolute. He wants to avoid a “self-segregation from public life,”[16] as if the state and its citizens should be left to their doom like passengers on the Titanic. His own view is neither retreatist nor redemptive, but a prophetic witness, albeit prophetic from the margins not the centre. That is because, “The kingdom of the cross is inescapably social.”[17] The problem I suggest is that if you are removed from the masses and media, can you really be prophetic? Any kind of advocacy will always entail confrontation with the powers, in the public square, in political discourse. One cannot be a “meddlesome priest” at a safe distance, the advocacy means being public, and to be public is to be political.

Third, Saiya opines churches that engage in fervent political action to move government and society in a more virtuous direction, yet he still believes that the church must stand up against injustice, advocate for the poor, and defend the voiceless and vulnerable, peacemaking, human rights, etc.[18] Yet there is a tension here that Saiya is not aware of and has not resolved. Depending on one’s political and ethical disposition, sometimes Christian prophetic activism will be welcomed, other times it will be decried as a meddling religious intrusion upon the state and its citizens.

In my experience, when churches oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, or other such things, one segment of politics and media decries them as culture warriors. Yet when Christians advocate for environmental care, a compassionate response to refugees, and fight against sex trafficking, the same segments of politics and media laud them as moral paragons. Thus, one man’s prophet is another man’s moralizing zealot! To provide a personal anecdote, I have been involved in efforts to reduce the political power and influence of the gambling cartels in Australian politics. While I call that prophetic action, others regard it as Christians meddling in the rights of Australians to gamble. You could say the same about various topics Christians have been vocal about such as religious freedom, immigration, and the decriminalization of cannabis. The difference between a prophetic voice and a moralizing crusader is very much relative to one’s own perspective. I agree that moral majority-type rhetoric can lead to the Talibanisation of Christian witness – especially over symbols of privilege such as prayer in schools or crosses in courthouses– but at the same time, Christians can and should advocate perspectives that accord with what is right before God, what is right before co-citizens, what contributes to the common good, what makes for human flourishing, and fosters a just society. Moreover, they should do so according to their own consensus and consciences, not according to the zeitgeist of the age, or according to the moral compass of an elite political class. Sadly, I don’t think Saiya has differentiated between the church’s prophetic call for justice and the occasions when the church can be annoyingly moralizing or confuses Christian values with Christian privileges.

Fourth, Saiya claims that the political order is to be resisted, not reformed or redeemed.[19] The church cannot cooperate or coalesce with the state on any matter. His position is one of prayer and piety to the exclusion of politics and privilege.[20] Saiya is allergic even to the Kuyperian notion of “sphere sovereignty” or any notion of a transformational perspective whereby one seeks to lay the political order at the feet of Christ.[21] Such a model can lead to an assimilation or domestication of the church to the state.[22] Rather, the church exists as “an alternative political community of prophetic revolutionaries in revolt against the status quo, modeling social justice and peace in its communal life”[23] and “Prophetic influence can only be exerted … if the church retains a sphere of autonomy separate from the machinations of power.”[24] Saiya extols the approach of speaking truth to power from the margins[25] because “Prophets do not seek power, nor do they associate themselves with the majority. They are, rather, agents of social criticism who challenge the powers on behalf of the marginalized.”[26]

But various problems appear. (a) Are the majority always to be held captive to a minority? One need not indulge extreme utilitarianism to grasp that seeking consensus around a majority, who are rarely homogenous, is not an unwise position, as long as minorities are safeguarded. (b) What happens if the prophet is persuasive and the powers listen and want to implement the church’s prophetic vision for justice? Saiya doesn’t seem to have a proposal or program for what happens next. (c) Is the church’s voice reduced to prophetic criticism? Is there any role in positive constructive, a common good, and joint effort in anything? Besides the lack of positive interaction with the state, the danger of focusing on prophetic critique, just like in Fundamentalism, is that one known only for what one is against.

Upgrade to Paid

Fifth, Saiya suggests that Christians cannot even serve in government, neither cooperate nor partner with the government.[27] He believes “Christians are to keep their distance from the levers of power.”[28] A view I regard as without biblical support because in the New Testament a proconsul (Sergius Paulus), a centurion (Cornelius), a public official (Erastus), and imperial staff (Caesar’s household) come to faith and are not expected to resign their office or position as far as we know.[29] Biblical characters like Joseph and Daniel served faithfully in the government of Pharaohs and Babylonian kings. In fact, while Egypt, Assyrian, Babylon, Greece, and Rome are treated as pernicious pagan pagans in Scripture, yet the Persian kingdom is generally regarded benignly in Hebrew sources! Note too that Paul appealed to Caesar in his criminal case because he expected a fair trial and the opportunity to bear witness to Caesar with his gospel as Jesus called him to do. A situation mirrored in his exchange with the Judean King Herod Agrippa II where Paul spoke the gospel to him in order to see him become a Christian.[30] What would a converted Nero or Agrippa II do with their kingdom if they did become Christ-followers? It’s a good hypothetical and I think the answer is neither to abdicate nor assimilate into a Christian State. But I don’t think Saiya has an answer, or a workable one.

I hasten to add that in a country like Fiji, 80% of the population are Christians. So how is Fiji to be governed by Fijians, if Fijian Christians are not permitted to enter into politics, public service, or public office in Fiji? In addition, Christians in politics can be very effective. The obvious example is William Wilberforce in the British Parliament during the abolitionist struggle. But even in modern times, clergy and theologians have entered American politics, like Rev. James Lankford (Republican), Rev. Raphael Warnock (Democratic), and theologian Cornel West running as an independent presidential candidate in 2024. Two Canadian MPs served in Parliament while concurrently serving as pastors in their churches and changed the political landscape of Canada (William Irvine and Tommy Douglas). Each one may be deserving of critique for their policies and character, but no-one should doubt the well-intentioned natured of their services to curate society according to the weight of their Christian convictions. It seems as if politics will always have its Mike Huckabee’s and Jesse Jacksons’s and it is not a totally bad proposition if one believes in a pluralistic and participationist democracy where people of all faiths and none will engage in political work for the betterment of society.

By consequence, I see no inherent problem when George W. Bush, Michael Pence, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden speaks in a church, or interweave biblical allusions into speeches, assuming it is done without hypocrisy, malice, or sectarian intent. That is because appealing to the collective knowledge of scripture or to the pieties of popular consensus can be prophetically powerful. In fact, the same strategy was deployed by Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King in the struggles against slavery and voter suppression whose speeches and writings are soaked in the grammar and imagery of Scripture. Yes, I concede the danger of “civil religion” when infusing religious language into political discourse, but as others have argued,[31] there is nothing wrong with reasoning from religious principles if they reflect the values of the people and are not weaponized against minorities.[32]

Plus, if one wishes to “nonviolently resist authorities”[33] I would suggest that political voting and running for political office are actually the most peaceful ways of resistance and effecting meaningful change! Voting for candidates who support the prophetic voice of the church has historically been one of the most efficient ways of achieving landmark changes through legislation. While it might not be the only hope, legislative gridlock and the corruption of power are real problems, democracy is a peaceful way to achieve just outcomes. As the Chinese proverb goes, “It is better to light a candle than curse the dark.” Political activisim is lighting a candle, it is the prophetic witness enfleshed into political realities, not left in the safe confines of a vestry.

I believe Saiya is better at what he warns against, but less persuasive and less workable in the alternative to Christian Nationalism and Detachment that he articulates. I fear that Saiya is drunk on Hauerwasian wine from Durham and needs to, like Jamie Smith, be awakened from his slumber by reading O’Donovan or Wolterstorff.[34]

Word from the Bird

Discussion about this post