Jesus and the Post-Christian West
Does Jesus want you to take back your society, to adapt to it, or to retreat from it?
Jesus is awesome.
There’s no doubt about it. Most people who read the accounts of his life agree on this.
And despite what modern secularism has made us believe, Jesus claimed to be relevant for more than just people’s private lives.
So how does Jesus suggest we engage our society, its culture, politics and social life? Below I outline three common Christian approaches, which I refer to with the slogans “take it back!”, “be relevant!” and “stay away!”.
The first approach to society calls for Christians to “take it back!”
It remembers a time when the West was quite uniformly Christian, and while it acknowledges that definitely not everything was great in those days, at least the underpinnings of society were Christian, and religion was present in most spaces of life, from schools to the government.
Today however, secularism has overturned this, and relegated Christianity to the private sphere and thus insignificance in society.
The “take it back!” approach rightly critiques the modern myth of neutrality, and sees the currently ‘neutral’ public space in society for what it is: as simply the dominance of a new ideology, an a-religious one this time, anything but neutral.
Thus, this approach advocates to restore Christianity to its privileged place in society, over against secular ideologies and increasingly Muslim worldviews as well. If only Christianity could be put back in society, all would be well.
While some Christians shout “take it back!”, others counter: “be relevant!”
This second approach urgently wants to apply its faith to the issues of today. It celebrates some of the victories modern society has achieved, rightly seeing the empowerment of women, civil rights for black people, and the liberation of colonized nations as great victories for Jesus.
As modernity critiques the oppressive aspects of the traditional Christian order, the “be relevant!” approach nods its head in agreement.
Therefore, it desires to present a relevant Jesus to the world, as opposed to the judgemental and hypocritical one they see represented in the old order. They see him fighting for freedom and equality. If only all of society would do the same, all would be well.
The third approach mentioned above can be labelled “stay away!”
This approach is as critical of modern secular society as the “take it back!” approach, and can be as critical of the old order as the “be relevant!” approach. But its outlook is far more pessimistic.
It sees society as irredeemable, short of Jesus’ return. Since engagement with society is futile, even polluting, it posits that Christians need to extract themselves from it to remain pure. Engaging in politics for example would mean compromising with the violent coercion that is inherent to it.
The way forward is to set up alternative communities that enact a different ethic. But for the “stay away!” approach, there is no way that all could be well.
So.
What is the true Jesus option?
Should we “take it back!”, “be relevant!”, or “stay away!”?
First, I must note that all three options have legitimate concerns. The myth of modern secular society’s neutrality must be exposed. Our faith is relevant to modern issues in ways perhaps not imagined by the old order. And there is the tendency to compromise in order to take control of history.
But serious critiques can also be levelled against the three approaches.
The “take it back!” approach insists on using power to impose its Christian vision on society. It often sees the widespread otherness in our diverse pluralistic societies as threatening, and seeks to seriously control and limit it.
The “be relevant!” approach tends to be too relevant and lose its distinct Christian identity. In contrast to the “take it back!” approach, it downplays the ideological differences in our pluralistic societies as much as possible. It extends its appropriate celebration of cultural diversity too easily to a celebration of religious diversity that borders on syncretism.
And the “stay away!” approach has too quickly given up hope on society. It recognizes that the Kingdom is “not yet”, but it ignores that at the same time it is “already”. It tends to hold out little hope for this day and age.
So is there perhaps a fourth approach that might avoid some of these critiques, while taking on board the legitimate concerns each of the first three approaches has?
There is, and we might make its slogan: “be present!”
From the perspective of “be present!”, the other three approaches are wrongly trying to avoid the tensions inherent to “being in the world, but not of it.”
“Take it back!” tries to be not of the world, but forces its vision of not being of the world onto the world. “Be relevant!” tries to be so much in the world, that it forgets it is not of it. And “stay away!” tries to be not of the world by actually not being in it.
Thus, these approaches land on positions that are one-sided and open to critique.
“Be present!” on the other hand refuses to avoid these tensions, and tries to live squarely in the middle of them.
Thus, along with “take it back!”, it critiques the myths and vices of modern society: its secular hegemony, the destructiveness of some of its ethics. Yet, along with “be relevant!”, it also dares to affirm all that is good in it: the freedoms, the rights obtained for traditionally oppressed groups.
With “be relevant!”, it celebrates the diversity in our multicultural society with its swirling mix of religions, ideologies, cultures and ethnicities: the cultural riches, the different perspectives. Yet along with “take it back!”, it is frank about the challenges that this mix of people with very different convictions poses, not in the least to Jesus as the only Way.
And along with “stay away!”, it acknowledges that trying to change society, especially through the state, can easily become oppressive to others and corrupting to one’s own ethics and witness. Yet along with “take it back!” and “be relevant!”, it does not give up on society, believing that a better world is possible.
This last point needs some elaboration, and will reveal why this approach’s slogan is “be present!”.
One of the important insights that “stay away!” has, is that “take it back!” and “be relevant!” believe too much in politics and the state. They believe that it is there that “the battle must be fought”, that we change society in the political sphere.
While “be present!” recognizes that politics, the state, and voting are important avenues for influencing society, it agrees with “stay away!” that they are by far not the only ones, nor necessarily the most ‘Christian’ ones.
It agrees with “stay away!” that we have been wrongly lead to believe that the state should solve all of our problems, and that we thus have surrendered to the state our responsibility to be light and salt in this world ourselves.
“Be present!” thus challenges us to creatively think of alternative ways of influencing society, first and foremost by being present to society all around us.
Thus, whereas “take it back!” might vote pro-life and lament that the state is enacting pro-choice laws, “be present!” would seek out pregnant women in the neighbourhood to support in their tough circumstances.
Whereas “be relevant!” might be lobbying for better and less expensive homes for the elderly, “be present!” would take in their ageing parents and care for them.
Whereas “take it back!” might be complaining to their mayor that the Muslim neighbours are not integrating well, “be present!” would invite them over for a cup of tea and some cake.
And again, whereas “stay away!” might not believe in politics, “be present!” would vote, run for elections, and start a political party. So the examples above do not mean it’s either vote or be active. No, for “be present!” it’s both-and!
So ultimately, the call of “be present!” is to be active; to not just critique or affirm in words (and we must do both), but to also creatively put those words into practice.
And the core conviction of “be present!” is that the ultimate goal is not to change society, but rather to love God, to love one’s neighbour, and to love one’s political, religious, cultural, and ethnic enemy.
And along the way, society just might change.
P.S.
- I don’t claim complete originality for the ideas presented here. They are mainly based on two books: To Change the World, and Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear.
- You might have noticed that the “take it back!” and “be relevant!” positions respectively sound very much like the conservative Christian right and the progressive Christian left. That’s no coincidence. Yet the approaches as presented above are ideal types, even caricatures. They are not exhaustively described, and few people are as un-nuanced as these types pretend. Yet my hope is that they help us think constructively about our engagement with society in pursuit of Jesus.
- Finally, I believe it is actually unavoidable that most people will lean towards one of the first three types (I certainly do), because we all have a tendency to want to resolve the tension of “being in the world, but not of the world”. Therefore, church communities will ideally include different people that incline to each of the different positions. Then, in love, they can help each other to live in the middle of this tension and “be present!”
