In a previous article we posed the question, “How should Christians interact with the society around them?” We briefly saw four answers (or options) that are commonly found in churches and amongst our Christian friends. In this second article we look at four more.
Fifth answer: Variations on a theme of pluralism
‘Confident Pluralism’ is the title of a 2016 book written by John Inazu. While not an explicitly Christian book,Inazu writes from a Christian perspective and has also co-edited another book (“Uncommon Ground”) with Tim Keller on these issues.
‘Confident pluralism’ is not religious pluralism (the idea that religious truth is ‘plural’ and that all religions are simply different paths to the same grand truth). Rather, confident pluralism starts with the recognition that differences of viewpoint do exist within society, and on that foundation tries to work out what common ground can be found practically between people of differing views. An example of this might be meetings between pro-choice and pro-life leaders to discuss shared interests, such as the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.
The label ‘confident’ is used for this approach since (Inazu argues) confidence of conviction ought to enable more open engagement with people of differing views, not less. Inazu writes:
“Rather than lashing out at others or remaining in our own echo chambers, we can pursue dialogue and coexistence even when (and perhaps especially when) we believe that our views are in fact the better ones.”[1]
Since Christians have confidence that God’s views are the better ones, they (more than most) ought to be able to engage non-defensively with others.
Another view built on the foundation of pluralism is ‘generous pluralism’, an answer more localized (to Australia, and especially Queensland) in its significance, but worth noting here briefly. Generous pluralism seems to seek to extend more ‘space’ to those of differing views than confident pluralism might. An example of this is abstaining from voting in the 2017 same-sex marriage plebiscite, rather than voting ‘no’.[2]
Sixth answer: Faithful presence
‘Faithful presence’ is an approach described by James Davison Hunter in his 2010 book ‘To Change the World’.[3] Although readership of this book has not been wide, its influence has been significant. Faithful presence is grounded in the vision of ‘shalom’ (peace) that “God intended and that he will, one day, restore,”[4]“a vision of order and harmony, fruitfulness and abundance, wholeness, beauty, joy, and well-being.”[5] Hence, in the world, “Christians are to live toward the well-being of others, not just to those within the community of faith, but to all.”[6]
For Hunter this means Christians must not withdraw from society but be faithfully present within it, committed to the common good, affirming what can be affirmed within the culture while providing a humble antithesis to it.[7] Significantly, in contrast to the ‘fight’ answer described in our last article, Hunter calls for Christians:
“…to be silent for a season and learn how to enact their faith in public through acts of shalom rather than to try again to represent it publicly through law, policy, and political mobilization.”[8]
Seventh answer: Renewed Christian realism
‘Renewed Christian Realism’ is the approach called for by John Stackhouse in his 2008 book ‘Making the Best of It’.[9] This approach revives the position of Christian Realism advocated by Reinhold Niebuhr in the 1930’s through to the 1950’s. Niebuhr’s approach was to be realistic about how limited human knowledge is (i.e. our views can be wrong) and also about the extent of human sinfulness (i.e. our motives are, at best, mixed). Hence, we should have fairly low expectations of what can realistically be achieved in human society.[10]However, notwithstanding these challenges, Niebuhr also saw it as a duty for Christians to be involved in the world to try to achieve such good as is possible – in other words, to “approximate the goodness of that better world [i.e. the kingdom of heaven]” in this one.[11]
Stackhouse renews Niebuhr’s call for Christians to be involved in the world, citing in support: (a) God’s command to subdue and rule over the earth (Gen.1:28), (b) the great commandments to love God and love neighbour (Mt.22:34-40), (c) the new commandment to love (Jn.13:34-35), and (d) the great commission (Mt.28:18-20).[12] He calls Christians to be involved in the society around them even though the extent of positive results might be limited, pragmatically ‘making the best of it’ in a world compromised by the Fall.[13]
Eighth answer: Ad hoc or balanced approaches
It may be becoming clear that each of the answers (or options) we’ve seen so far has things in common with one or more of the other answers given; in fact, in some situations, the practical outcomes from taking one approach might look exactly the same as the practical outcomes from taking one of the other approaches. Also, the portions of the Bible which are appealed to for support for one approach can sometimes also be appealed to by other approaches. We might also notice that sometimes a Christian might operate according to one of these approaches in one area of life or situation, and according to a different approach in a different area of life or situation.
This has led some to advocate for an ‘ad hoc’ or ‘balanced’ approach to Christian interaction with the world; in other words, to draw upon different (or even multiple) options/approaches depending on the situation.[14] There is more that could be said about this, but that will have to wait for future articles.
Conclusion
There are (no doubt) even more answers to the question, “How should Christians interact with society?” than we’ve seen in these two articles. However these approaches seem to be the ones most commonly encountered in our context. If you would like to delve deeper into this topic, we suggest you download our in-depth paper ‘Examining a Christian Posture Towards the World‘. In the meantime, some questions for private or group reflection are provided below.
Questions for reflection
- What features or aspects are common across two (or more) of the approaches above? You may also like to consider the four ‘answers’ given in Part 1 of this article.
- Can you think of any dangers or pitfalls that might arise in applying any of the above approaches? Alternatively, are there strengths or virtues of each approach that appeal to you?
- Look up the Bible passages below. Write down which of the answers (Pluralist answers; Faithful presence; Renewed Christian realism) you think each passage might support.
– Genesis 1:26-28
– Matthew 22:34-40
– John 13:34-35
– Matthew 28:18-20 - What value to you see in adopting an ‘ad hoc’ or balanced approach? How might this approach help us in different situations?
- This whole topic is tricky and we need God’s wisdom to navigate it well. What sorts of things should we pray for each other as we wrestle with these questions? Spend some time in prayer.
[1] John D. Inazu, Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, paperback edition 2018), 85.
[2] Nathan Campbell, “Why generous pluralism is a better ideal than idealistic purism and provides a better future for our broad church (or why I resigned from GIST).” (Blog post, 14th September 2017, https://st-eutychus.com/2017/why-generous-pluralism-is-a-better-ideal-than-idealistic-purism-and-provides-a-better-future-for-our-broad-church-or-why-i-resigned-from-gist/ cited 9/2/21.)
[3] James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
[4] Hunter, To change the world, 228.
[5] Ibid, 228.
[6] Ibid, 230.
[7] Ibid, 276-285.
[8] Ibid, 281.
[9] John G. Stackhouse Jnr., Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
[10] Ibid, 84-96.
[11] Ibid, 98.
[12] Ibid, 205-220.
[13] Ibid, 350-356.
[14] See for example Keller, Center Church, 223-232 and D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008; paperback edition 2012), 43, 59-65.