The Varieties of Christian Political Action: Part 2, Realism and Revolution

So, given the central question facing Christian political action some (actually I'd say most) believe that Christians should assume responsibility for history. This responsibility commits them to involvement with politics and the actions of the state.

At this point, a second question creates another contrast in my taxonomy of political action. Specifically, should our political action be characterized by realism or revolution?

Following Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian realism is the view that the kingdom of God cannot be fully realized on earth due to the fallenness of persons and institutions. So we have to be "realistic" and accept that we'll have to reconcile ourselves to political approximations of the moral goods we aspire to as Christians. For example, a nation state can't embody sacrificial love or kenosis in its policies. Those moral ideals are not politically realizable for a nation state. But a state can be more just, inclusive, and fair. Justice becomes, for example, a political approximation of love. 

Beyond becoming more modest in our expectations about what a state can or cannot politically achieve, especially in a pluralistic and democratic society, Christian realism, as I'm conceiving it here, is also committed to submitting to established political structures and an incrementalist view of progress. That is to say, we use the political tools that have been given to us and work toward changes that may take decades, if not generations, to accomplish. 

Given this description, I'd say almost all Christian political action we see in the world today is a form of Christian realism. We use the political tools and powers available to us working toward change, election cycle after election cycle, knowing that even our preferred political outcomes will remain a far cry from the world and life God intends for us. Still, as citizens wanting to be good stewards of our common politics, and bearing some responsibility for history, we do the work in seeking these approximate goods.

In contrast to Christian realism would be a revolutionary Christian politics. The contrast goes to both the size and speed of change. Regarding the size of the change, a revolutionary politics, due to the pressing responsibility for history, will not be contented with using the politics available to us. This politics is broken beyond repair and requires immediate replacement. The political status quo has to be overthrown and replaced. 

Beyond the scope and size of the demanded change, there is also the issue of time. A revolutionary politics rejects gradualism and incrementalism. The change has to happen now, in this generation. A contrast, therefore, between realism and revolution is patience. Realism is patient to play a long generational game, whereas revolution is impatient and demands change immediately. 

Returning to the issue of history, another contrast between Christian realism and revolution is the issue of utopianism. That is, what Christian ideals are actually and realistically achievable within history? Christian realism will have a pessimistic answer to this question. Christian realists will insist that every political human arrangement will be marred by compromise, failure, and sin. Christian revolutionaries, by contrast, will tend to have more optimistic, utopian answers to the the question, arguing that much found within an idealized politics is achievable in our time and place if we but had the courage, vision, and will to seize it.

If you'd like a case study in this contrast between Christian realism and revolution, compare and contrast Abraham Lincoln versus John Brown on the issue of American slavery. The book The Zealot and the Emancipator is a good place to start.

Now, in a taxonomy we describe Christian realism and Christian revolution as a difference of kind rather than degree. But the difference between realism and revolution is one of degree. Christians engaged in politics can vary with how patient they are with change in their lifetimes and how utopian they are in their expectations about what is politically achievable. Some of us are more realistic and others more revolutionary. But truth be told, that's really a difference of temperament than of politics. Our political temperaments are often revolutionary whereas our politics are, pretty much across the board, realistic. Even protests are almost wholly realistic. For sure, the temperament of protests are revolutionary, but most protests remain within the bounds of democratic political action and never directly seek to overthrow the power of the state. Like I said, revolutionary temperament, realistic political action. Though they would hate to admit it, almost every Christian activist is solidly within the Christian realist camp.

Summarizing, we've now surveyed the first fork of my taxonomy. For Christians who believe they bear some moral responsibility for history, such Christians engage in politics along a continuum of action from Christian realism to revolution, with almost all of their political action, from voting to protesting, falling toward Christian realism.