As Christians how should we relate to the society around us? In a changing world that can be a difficult question to answer.
Back in 2017 after the same-sex marriage plebiscite, the Bible Society’s ‘Eternity’ magazine published a front-page feature, “How to be a Public Christian: Speaking to a New Australia”. Several contributors wrote on the topic of how Christians ought to respond to this new context, where people had clearly voted for something that (generally speaking) most Christians were against.[1]
Interestingly, there were substantial differences in the views expressed, one saying we should we fight politically against the further erosion of Christian values in the public square, another indicating we should simply love our neighbour and get on with the business of being Christian, and still another saying we should modify the form of our message.
In this, the first of two articles, we look at four answers commonly found in churches and amongst our Christian friends, to the question ‘How should Christians interact with society?’
First answer: Fight
The first option as to how Christians should interact with society sees Christian interaction with society primarily as a battle. Christians are encouraged to fight and make a stand, politically and publicly, against the erosion of Christian values in society. The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) is the most prominent advocate of this approach but there are several other organisations advocating a similar approach.
It’s important to understand that what is being fought for in this approach is not primarily the church or the rights of Christians, but Western civilization. The liberal freedoms of the West are seen as closely allied with (and arising from) Christianity, and key to preserving good societies. The foundational assumption is that making and preserving good laws, enforced by the courts, will win the war of making or preserving a good society. The ‘front line’ in this battle is therefore state and national parliaments. Organising Christians to lobby their government representatives is a major element of this approach.
Second answer: Strategic withdrawal
Representative of the ‘strategic withdrawal’ approach is Rod Dreher’s 2017 book ‘The Benedict Option’. Like the ‘fight’ answer, this approach sees the relationship between Christianity and the world (at least presently) as a war. In contrast to the ‘fight’ answer though, ‘strategic withdrawal’ sees this war as effectively lost. Hence what is needed is “…a strategic withdrawal – a limited kind of culture-war Dunkirk operation to gain the church militant a space in which to regroup, retrain, and reengage in the long struggle…”[2]
This approach recommends that Christians withdraw from parts of society (at least for the moment), instead creating parallel Christian institutions or structures in these areas. It recommends this as the most effective way of influencing society in the long term. And so, Christians are encouraged to withdraw from things like state-run schools, they are encouraged to set up Christian businesses, and to choose to live in close geographic proximity to other Christians to build Christian community. Less physical kinds of withdrawal (e.g. around internet and technology use) are also encouraged.
Third answer: Focus on core business
A third answer urges Christians to focus on the core business of evangelism and discipleship. John McClean summarises this approach well: “The alternative view is that the church is called to preach the gospel and disciple people and should stick to that core business. It has no direct social or political role. In this view pastors, as church leaders, do not get involved in politics or speak to the political process… Churches are unlikely to have programs which address social issues whether that be running a food bank or holding parenting seminars. If those programs are held, they will aim to support evangelism, the ‘core business’ of the church.”[3]
While this answer appears to be quite different from the previous two answers, it does share with the ‘strategic withdrawal’ approach the practical outcome of (at least) some degree of withdrawal from society. Not that Christians who adopt this approach are opposed to engagement with society, but in this approach a degree of withdrawal is inevitable if only because engagement with society is just not a very high priority.
Fourth answer: Bless the city
A fourth answer often given as to how Christians are to interact with society, is that they are to interact with society from a fundamental posture of ongoing positive engagement, primarily expressed through good works. In other words, Christians are to ‘bless the city’. The vision statement of Redeemer Presbyterian Church is a good example of this approach: “The Redeemer family of churches and ministries exist to help build a great city for all people…”[4] However it is important also to recognise that while in this approach habitual good works are basic, personal conversion is also seen as fundamental to the way in which the city is blessed.
In Australia, where this approach has been popular, it seems to have been embraced (somewhat) as a reaction to the ambivalence towards society that can arise in the ‘focus on core business’ approach. In contrast to the ‘focus on core business’ approach, ‘bless the city’ stresses that positive interaction with society is a priority. In the United States, on the other hand, ‘bless the city’ seems to be more of a reaction to the culture wars and (hence also) to the ‘fight’ approach. ‘Bless the city’ does function (practically) as an alternative both ‘fight’ and withdrawal approaches.
But wait, there’s more!
The options outlined in this article don’t exhaust the ways in which people commonly answer the question, “How should Christians interact with society?” In a second (forthcoming) article we will look at four more approaches. In the meantime, some questions for personal or group reflection are provided below.
Questions for reflection
1. Which of the above answers have you come across in your church and among your Christian friends? What other answers have you come across?
2. Can you think of a strength and a weakness of each of the above approaches? Write them down.
3. Look up the Bible passages listed below, and write down what they have to say about one or more of the approaches outlined above (if you can you think of more Bible passages that are relevant, then write them down too).
- Matthew 5:14-16
- Proverbs 29:2
- Matthew 28:18-20
- 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
- Other
4. Which of the approaches outlined in this article do you find yourself drawn to, and why?
[1] Eternity reported in the midst of the same-sex marriage debate itself, that the Roman Catholic, Anglican, ACC, Baptist, Presbyterian, Orthodox, and Seventh-Day Adventist churches (plus others) were all supportive of the ‘no’ case, with only the Quakers supporting the ‘yes’ case, and the Uniting Church not advising people how to vote. Tess Delbridge, “Fact check: What do Christian churches really think about same-sex marriage?” Eternity online, 23rdAugust 2017.
[2] Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option (New York: Sentinel, 2018), xvii.
[3] John McClean, “The church and social engagement,” Unpublished discussion paper for the Presbyterian Church of Australia Church and Nation Committee (2018), 7. McClean is quoting K. DeYoung and G.D. Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011).