First, a clarification. When I describe "Christian political action" I'm describing the nature of the political engagement, not the content or aims of the political action. Specifically, I'm describing how Christians relate to politics itself, and mainly how we relate to the state. Thus the contrasts here won't be between, say, "progressive" or "evangelical" political action, as those are about different political aims. In the taxonomy I'm sharing both progressives and evangelicals could, in fact, demonstrate the exact same form of political engagement (like winning elections) though with different aims and political goals.
That clarification out of the way, let's begin.
The taxonomy I'm proposing starts with what I think is the key question at the heart of political theology. Specifically, are Christians responsible for the outcome of history?
This question comes from John Howard Yoder, and I think it's the first and largest fork in the road for Christian political engagement, for it defines how the Christian will view and relate to the state.
Christians who answer "yes" to the question of historical responsibility believe that Christians are politically responsible for righting the injustices of the world. Consequently, Christians must avail themselves of political power to bend the moral arc of history. Christians are obligated to be politically involved and engaged.
Christians who answer "no" to the question of historical responsibility view politics, this side of the eschaton, as fallen and therefore corrupting to the moral witness of the church. Consequently, Christians cannot participate in politics as involvement in politics so eclipses, blurs, corrupts, distorts, compromises, and erases the Christian moral witness that kingdom of God is no longer visible in the world, as either prophetic moral contrast or eschatological hope. Christians, therefore, are not responsible for the outcome of history, not obligated to assume control of the state to right wrongs. Christians are called, rather, to bear witness to the kingdom of God as an "eschatological community of political contrast" within history. Christian political witness is to create a "colony of heaven" in the midst of history as a contrasting vision of community and power over against the state.
If this seems fuzzy, the issue of pacifism illustrates the concept. For those Christians who think violence can be justified, and especially, for this conversation, state-sanctioned violence, that justification rests upon the argument that Christians must be responsible for history. Evil has to stop now, in history, and it's our moral obligation to stop it.
Pacifists, by contrast, argue that killing, of whatever sort, so compromises the moral witness of the kingdom that we cannot participate in taking life. And if this means that evil wins within history, well, that's not our responsibility to control. We are called, rather, as a colony of heaven to remain true to a nonviolent witness, trusting that God, and not us, will sort history out at the end of time.
For this post, I'm not taking a side on the debate about pacifism. I'm simply using it to illustrate what "taking responsibility for history" means. Christians who think violence can be justified do so because they feel obligated to take responsibility for history, even if that means a compromised or erased moral witness. Pacifists, by contrast, maintain a pure moral witness even if that means history doesn't go where we think it should. Pacifists cede history to the care of God.
To conclude, my taxonomy of "the varieties of Christian political action" starts here, with what I think is the first and most critical question facing Christian political action: Are Christians responsible for history? Some Christians answer yes and others answer no.
