Here’s a little thing I’ve been working on for a while. It’s a tad reductionist, but I’m attempting to describe certain streams and assumptions of Christianity that seem to integrate behind different ways that Christians engage with politics/the world. I suspect most people aren’t thoroughly consistent and often hover between two adjacent columns (depending on the ‘row’). There’s also a sort of optimism/hope to pessimism/despair spectrum at play for people in each row/column too, so it’s never quite so simple. I’m not wedded to much in this, I’m really trying to tease out how we integrate these bits and pieces into a coherent ‘political’ and ‘ethical’ approach to life.
Some of these boxes still need fleshing out, this is a living attempt to describe something that I’m happy to edit based on suggestions.
Ethical systems are hard to pin down too, I wanted to do them as a row, because ultimately I’m interested in how each column approaches ethics (I’d say the ‘centre’ columns are typically more interested in virtue/character ethics while the outer columns bend towards consequentialism; and the right two columns are typically into deontology tending towards divine command theory on the hard right. When it comes to a particular ethical issue — or which issues we pick as important — like how we approach sex, or education or money/career, these, I think, work as a sort of ‘matrix’ for decision making (both in terms of how we come to a position and the position we come to). I’m not sure ‘approach to sex and sexuality’ for example is a row, but these rows and columns would determine how somebody arrives at a position/predict the position a person arrives at.
It’s also possible to get some pretty strange combinations of, for example, anthropology and eschatology, that make this sort of exercise fall apart; so, for example, it’s possible to have an essentially Catholic anthropology (which would fit the centre left), and a post-millenial ‘we’re building the kingdom now’ eschatology (not limited to the church) and end up with the politics of the hard right. If you’re a Catholic pre-millenial (expecting tribulation and the ultimate defeat of evil) you end up as the Third Eagle of the Apocalypse. But I suspect most people are consistent at least in how their politics flow from their convictions about God, Jesus, and the Gospel.
| Hard Left | Centre Left | Centre Right | Hard Right | |
| Summary of the Gospel. | Liberation of the world from worldly oppressors (Luke 4). | Jesus is God’s king, promised in the Old Testament, who is now establishing a kingdom. | Jesus is the saviour who paid the penalty for my sin. |
Jesus is the judge of the world who will punish the unrighteous. |
| Understanding of human nature/anthropology | Made in the image of God; deformed but mostly by the sins of the powerful and by sinful oppression that leave us with little choice. Optimistic humanism (we can overcome these problems), pessimistic about institutions/power. | Made in the image of God. Broken by sin. Optimistic about human institutions when built around a vision of God’s kingdom. People outside the church are capable of participating in these institutions (big on common grace). | Made in the image of God, though sin has damaged our ability to be like God, know God or know true things about God’s word. The state is provided by God to provide common grace by restraining evil, but hope for the world is found through people recognising their sin and their need for a saviour. Bit on total depravity (in the sense that all human actions are tainted by sinful hearts). | Total depravity has become absolute depravity. The world is hostile — in enmity with God — and will hate us for being faithful (which we are only able to achieve through the Spirit, having been convicted by being confronted with God’s law and our utter brokenness and inherent worthlessness). |
| Understanding of repentance. | Fight oppressors (by) following the example of Jesus. There are streams of this ‘fight’ that embrace non-violence, but other liberation theology is prepared to fight fire with fire. | The ongoing turning of authority over your life to Jesus, entering his kingdom by faith in his victorious death. Particular emphasis on non-violence, shalom, and the kingdom being embodied and something we participate in as we take up our cross daily. | A decision to turn from sin, to Jesus, to be saved. By grace alone, through faith alone. Not by works or merit. | Turn from sin and condemn it publicly and vocally. If you haven’t turned hard enough you’re probably not actually repentant. |
| Understanding of discipleship. |
Follow the example of Jesus, not necessarily because of any hope for salvation, but because his example is good and true. Sometimes at the expense of his teachings if they have been used to oppress. | Follow the example of Jesus because he is king, and saviour. Freed by his victory to live confidently as part of his kingdom. Seek to establish ‘shalom’ in the world through alternative ‘kingdom’ living. | Discipleship is training to help other people make a decision for Jesus (to answer their questions, and perhaps your own in the process). But it’s being saved that really matters.
Inasmuch as there is an emotional component to discipleship it emphasises cultivating love for God (eg Piper’s Christian hedonism). There is a ‘secular’/’sacred’ divide because the ‘secular’ will not last — so the most valuable work for the Christian is Gospel proclamation. |
Moral formation driven by the desire to mark yourself as God’s people by keeping God’s law. Occasionally driven by fear. |
| Understanding of the Cross (in order of emphasis) | 1. Victor (over oppressors and maybe if the Spiritual stuff is true, over sin and death) 2. Exemplar At the Cross Jesus totally sided with the oppressed — and showed the darkness of human power and oppression — his non-violent protest to this oppressive force would ultimately be its undoing — its the church, not Caesar’s Rome, that still exists today. The church, following the example of Jesus, is the hope for the world as we follow his example in fighting oppression by taking up our cross to follow him. Our individual sins are almost a necessary evil, so long as we aren’t complicit in the oppression of others. And the people who establish categories of righteousness are typically the powerful elites who use this as a mechanism for control — both in the state, and the church, so we should rightly be suspicious of any attempts to coerce people to behave in a particular way; and God isn’t coercive or oppressive, so he wouldn’t do this to us either. |
1. Victor (over sin, death, and oppressors) 2. King 3. Exemplar 4. Penal substitution (Saviour) Through his death, resurrection, and atonement Jesus defeats Satan, evil, sin, and death, and at the Cross he is enthroned as king — first on the cross, now seated on the throne in heaven where he rules his kingdom — the church — while it awaits his return to establish his kingdom totally. The church lives following his example, empowered the Spirit to live kingdom-shaped (and shaping) lives now, knowing that our sins have been forgiven as Jesus paid the price to secure our adoption. |
1. Penal Substitution (Saviour) 2. Victor (over sin, death, and Satan) 3. Exemplar 4. King Jesus, in his perfection, paid the penalty for the sins of the world, that whoever believes will have eternal life with him. His death snatched the lives of his people from the hands of Satan, and condemned him to defeat. We now follow his example in seeking and saving the lost, living out the great commission, which has a particular emphasis on helping people share in this forgiveness and the hope of new life. The Spirit helps us answer questions, keeps us hanging on to our decision to follow Jesus, and helps us to live in obedience, to keep turning from sin, and living in a way that will help others make a decision to follow Jesus. |
1. King. 2. Penal Substitution 3. Exemplar Jesus is the perfectly righteous lawkeeper; the one who will return to judge with justice — separating sheep and goats, wheat and chaff — his right to judge was secured in the injustice of the cross, and in his divine right. He will judge us based on our obedience to divine law. We are all lawbreakers by nature — but his death frees us from slavery to sin to live as a righteous people. |
| Emphasis on individual v systemic effects of sin. |
Almost entirely ‘structural’; caricatures the ‘oppressor’ as those in power (views all institutional power as violence). | Sees both the structural result of individual sin, and our culpability for our own sinfulness — not just sins we commit of our own free will, but how we benefit from systems that reinforce status quo power disparity and ‘privilege’.
Differ a bit on how optimistic to be about human institutions, power, and violence, from the anabaptistic approach of someone like Hauerwas to the reformed/faithful presence approach of Hunter, Smith, etc. |
Emphasises individual sin — and, on the flip side — is less likely to hold individuals to account for sinful structures that they have not been explicitly responsible for.
Differentiates the self from the system (eg ‘I’m not Y and have no need for identity labels from the world, because I personally love X people and see them as made in the image of God.’ Less inclined to fight systemic injustice, and more interested in retrieval of Gospel outcomes (saved individuals) from broken institutions than reforming institutions themselves. These broken institutions, are of course, a product of broken individuals, and if these individuals follow Jesus the systemic change should follow. The closer to the ‘centre’ a person is the more they are likely to see ‘faithful presence’ involving institutions as a useful strategy, the closer to the right a person in this column is the more likely they are to form ‘counter’ political institutions as a form of faithful presence. |
Emphasises individual sin, but sees ‘sinful structures’ outside the kingdom as things to be avoided lest we be tainted or associated with evil; simply being connected to these worldly institutions is corrupting.
Likely to establish ‘Christian’ institutions for the benefit of other Christians (with relatively strong boundaries — ie Christian schools with doctrinal statements, home schooling, Christian businesses, Christian ‘arts’). Sees love for neighbour and their ‘best’ life secured through legislation that minimises sin. |
| Interpretive lens | Follow a trajectory of liberation and ongoing revelation (interpretive authority — ie ‘recognising trajectories’ and ‘oppression’/the oppressed — rests in the hands of the liberators responding to particular oppressors. | Follows a trajectory of ‘kingdom’ either starting with Adam or Israel, and seeing Jesus as the ultimate king who brings a kingdom that dramatically reverses the patterns of worldly power and authority. Typically a Christocentric lens with a dash of liberation/emphasis on the oppressor being overthrown and God’s concern being for the vulnerable. | Follows a thread of God dealing with sin and saving a people through promises, faith, sacrifice, and obedience; ultimately centred on Jesus as true priest, sacrifice, temple, and faithful law/covenant-keeping human. | Follows a thread of ‘in/out’ people and groups; the ‘righteous’ in a legal/forensic sense and the reprobate. Probably with covenant or dispensation language thrown into the mix. |
| Eschatology | It’s not certain Jesus was anything other than the best example of the kind of love we might hope for at our best, so his return isn’t necessarily on the cards, and if he does return it will be in a way that finally overthrows the oppressors, but in order to not be violent, everyone probably gets the peace he brings. | Jesus will return as King in this world (merged with the heavens to make it new); and our bodily resurrection means that there is continuity and the kingdom we build now will carry over in some way into the new. | Jesus will return and establish his kingdom; burning up all that is of this world. | Jesus will return and finally defeat evil after some sort of tribulation/final battle, burning up all that is of this world in a refining fire. |
| Post-Christian strategies/political theologians of choice | Post-Christianity is a strategy for Christians because the institutional church is an oppressor. Embrace progress; partner with a coalition of progressive groups sometimes at odds with other Christians.
Liberation theologians, you probably haven’t heard of them because they’re non-anglo. |
Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens Walter Brueggemann Miroslav Volf
Scot McKnight NT Wright |
James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World, Wilkinson and Joustra, How To Survive The Apocalypse James K.A Smith’s Awaiting The King Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option Oliver O’Donovan’s Resurrection and Moral Order (though the centre left like him too). I’d probably put Russell Moore, Albert Mohler and Carl Trueman in this box, and most of the Gospel Coalition’s stuff (whether Australian or American). On the ‘right’ edge of the centre anything political/ethical is likely to be published in Australia by Matthias Media |
John MacArthur Douglas Wilson Tracts about salvation and judgment. |