BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

GEORGE W. TRUETT THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

CHRISTIAN PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS

SUBMITTED TO:

DR. ROGER OLSON

FOR THE COURSE:

THEO7380 STUDIES IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS

BY

ELI GUTIERREZ
 The Christian strives to make the kingdom more present in this world, but the
fullness of justice and peace will never be here. I maintain there can be some
truly human progress in history, but such progress is ordinarily slow and
painful.1
–Charles E. Curran

Introduction
Every six years in my country, Mexico, we have presidential elections. Next July 1st, 2018
Mexicans will vote to elect a new president and the kind of government that we will have for
the next period. As the time for voting comes near, politics is the topic everywhere. The
media is full of party propaganda, people debates ardently in social media, and many
Christian question what should be the stance of the Church as community and of Christians
as individuals about politics. Indeed, this last one is an important question not only for
election time but for Christian behavior in general. To what extent should Christians
participate in politics? How should we relate to political parties? What should be the position
of the church toward the government and public policies? Is there a political system that fits
better with the Christian faith? These and many other questions will be addressed in this
essay.
I will ground my analysis on the Scripture, which should be the source for any
formulation of Christian ethics. The revelation of God through the Bible is the norming norm
through which Christians should interpret the world. Moreover, my approach will take the
teachings of Jesus as the interpretative key to understand the message of the biblical
narrative. Of course, tradition, reason, and experience are important to give an answer to
issues in Christian ethics. However, I maintain that tradition, reason, and experience should
be subordinated to the message of the Bible which contains the self-revelation of God to
humanity. My reflections will offer a Christian response to the issue of Christian participation
in politics on the context of a western secular society. I will argue that Christians should
participate in politics as a display of our identity. We are called to be the people of God, a
community grounded on his intention of love and justice toward the world. We are a certain
kind of people that love and show mercy toward others. We look to fulfill God’s purpose for
humanity. And our political task is to be his church.

My approach to Christian ethics

Being a Christian is, above all, being a certain kind of people. It is to be a follower of Christ.
Thus, a Christian virtue ethics must be based on the virtues that Jesus taught. Many scholars
have pointed out that the main theme in Jesus’ preaching was the kingdom of God.2 According
to the gospel of Mark when Jesus began to preach his gospel the content was that “the
kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 3:15 ESV). Stassen and Gushee argue that Jesus frequently
referred to the book of the prophet Isaiah when he spoke about the kingdom of God.3 Thus,
the picture of Isaiah about the coming reign of God is important to understand the teaching

1 Charles E. Curran, American Catholic Social Ethics, (Notre Dame: University Press, 1982), 284.
2 For example, Glenn H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context
(Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003).
3 Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 23.

1
of Jesus. This picture was characterized by God’s salvation and deliverance, God’s presence,
justice, peace, and great joy. The kingdom of God was understood as the active intervention
of God not only in the future but in the present as well, and not only spiritual but also
material. For Stassen and Gushee the main virtues found in teachings of Jesus are humility,
righteousness, mercy, purity of heart, peacemaking, endurance, and joy. They argue that such
virtues are found throughout the Bible and are grounded on God’s grace, faithfulness, and
deliverance. These virtues picture what is it to be a follower of Jesus.
A Christian ethics, therefore, should not only be concerned on what to do in certain
situations, neither only what rules to follow, but about what kind of people to be. Against
situationism, consequentialism, and deontology, I think that a virtue ethics offers a more
appropriate ground because it is directed not only to situations, results, or principles but to
the very personhood of humans. That does not mean that it is not important to examine what
to do in certain particular situations, nor that consequences of our actions are not important,
nor that principles are not essential. But it means that we need to go to the heart of the matter
and focus on the deepest level of our humanity. We are more than bodies that feel, and much
more than minds that think, we are, as James K. Smith puts it, “desiring agents with a
passional orientation to an ultimate vision of the good life” 4. We are embodied selves that
are loyal to what we consider valuable, to what we regard as truth. Therefore, my approach
to Christian ethics will be concerned on what shapes our identity and forms our character.
Being Christian is to be a participant in a larger drama, the story of God with his
people. This narrative is the ground of our faith and the heart of Christianity. The message of
the Scripture is much more than some truths to believe, it is a something to experience. And
this existential meaning of the Bible narrative has an extraordinary transformative power.
Hauerwas maintains that “to see ourselves and our lives as part of God’s story […] produces
people with a cause [which is] God’s determination to bring the world back into a right
relation to its Creation.”5 The story of God with his people narrates who is him and how he
relates to us through covenants and ultimately through Christ. That story is the ground on
which the Christian community is created. And it is in such community where Christian
character is shaped. Hauerwas points out that ethics “make sense only when embodied in
sets of social practices that constitute a community”.6 In sum, the Biblical narrative is the
ground on which the identity of the covenantal community is shaped, and the practices that
produce the virtues of the kingdom Jesus preached are only possible in that community.

Christian perspectives on politics

Philip Wogaman argues that politics is “the arena in which our life is played out in human
history. Life is more than political, but politics permeates and affects virtually everything.” 7
In his book about Christian politics he defines the essential elements of politics: the state,
political power, legitimate authority, government, and the struggle for power. For him, the
state is the society acting as a whole. The political power is the capacity to influence the

4 James K. A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom. Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Baker Academy, 2009), 75.

5 Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens. Life in the Christian Colony (Nashville: Abingdon

Press, 1989), 67.

6 Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 79.
7 J. Philip Wogaman, Christian Perspectives on Politics. Revised and Expanded (Lousiville, Kentucky: Westminster

John Knox Press, 200), ix.

2
political behavior of others. The legitimate authority is the power of a political entity
(government) regarded as legitimate by society. Government is the legitimate expression of
the state’s authority. And the struggle for political power is present in any political order.8 It
is not possible to overemphasize the importance of politics in human life. In our western
modern context, politics is a pervasive responsibility that affects many important issues such
as war and peace, wealth distribution and poverty, social care, security, laws and legality,
judgement and punishment, liberties and rights, etc. Moreover, willing or not we all
participate in politics one way or another. We cannot do almost anything without taking part
on what the state does. Therefore, we must care about politics. The question is not whether
Christians should participate in politics or not, but to what extent and how we are to be
involved in politics.
While Christians have dealt with politics since the beginning, their stances toward
politics have been ambivalent throughout history. This ambivalence can be seen in Scripture
as well. In the Old Testament are examples of people of God participating very actively in
politics. Joseph is depicted as a very important political figure in the Egyptian government,
used by God to preserved life. Daniel also served in the civil government of the Babylonian
empire. On the other hand, we find John the Baptist who confronted Herod the tetrarch for
his “evil things” which included his evil government (Luke 3:19). Paul says that we should
pray for our authorities (1 Timothy 2:2) because they are established by God (Romans 13:1),
and Peter commands to be subject to them (1 Peter 2:13). However, the Bible also teaches
that we ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Also, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego in Daniel 3, as well as Peter and John in Acts 4, disobeyed the civil authorities. And
in Revelation 13 the civil government is regarded as evil using the image of “the beast”.
This ambivalence has been also present in the Christian tradition throughout the
centuries. It is not possible to recount the whole history of Christian politics but suffice is to
say that we can find all kinds of relationship between the church and the state. There is a
complex spectrum from the viewpoint that the church and the state are to be one same thing
working together, to the stance that the church should have nothing to do with politics. The
question is when Christians should participate in politics and when they must stand outside
the government to denounce its evils. When can we be called even to hold public positions
as Joseph and Daniel and when are we called to denounce the evils of government and even
disobey authorities as Daniel’s friends and the apostles. Historically, one of the main issues
in the relation between Christianity and politics is the use of force. Violence and coercion are
usually tied to the state action and it is not always easy to reconcile such things with the
values of love and mercy which are at the heart of the Christian faith. To understand the
Christian spectrum on politics I will follow the exposition of Philip Wogaman of five
“generating centers” of contemporary Christian thought that give different responses to the
issues of the Christian participation in politics and the legitimacy of the state. These will not
be absolute categories and sometimes they overlap between them. They are “generating
centers” rather than rigid definitions.
First, Christian pacifist and anarchist perspectives. This view questions the legitimacy
of the states grounded on its use of violence and coercion. In his book The Political Illusion,
Jacques Ellul argues that our politics illustrate our bondage to this world and that our

8 Wogaman, Politics, 11-33.

3
problems cannot be solved through politics.9 For him, if Christians are to participate in
politics it is not to use the political power to achieve Christian goals but to constitute a point
of tension between the social order and the real humanity as seen in the life and ministry of
Jesus Christ. In his words “Christians are to be in political life to bear witness.”10 Ellul argues
that a Christian could not conduct a successful politics because the use of violence in politics
is necessary. And, while he recognizes the necessity of the state he rejects its legitimacy. John
H. Yoder also questions the state’s use of violence. In his book The Politics of Jesus he argues
that Christians should renounce radically to violence because non-violence was the way of
Jesus. For him, Christians should be involved in the struggle for justice but not trying to
manage history because only God has the world in his hands.
Second, Christian liberationist perspectives. On the other side of the spectrum there
is the Liberation Theology. Gustavo Gutierrez, regarded for many as the father of Liberation
Theology, argues that the work of Christ liberates humans from sin and all its consequences.
This view protests strongly against oppression, exploitation, and poverty and argues that the
gospel of Christ addresses directly those realities and fights to empower the oppressed to be
free from the bondage of oppression and to establish a new order of peace, freedom, and
justice. For Liberation Theology this should be the agenda of the church. In Christ, God
showed that he was on the side of the poor, thence Christians should also be actively on the
side of the poor. This is a political task that could lead to revolution. Liberationists would
justify the violence of revolution arguing the illegitimacy of the oppressive power structures.
When the whole system is flawed it needs to be overthrown or at least be fundamentally
changed. James Cone maintains that violence is already present in the oppressive system,
therefore “the only option we have is that of deciding whose violence we will support –that
of the oppressor or the oppressed.”11
Third, neoconservative Christian perspectives. This view affirms the superiority of
democracy above all other political systems. Wogaman characterizes this group as a new
kind of conservatives committed to capitalism, limited state, free market, private property,
and individual liberties.12 According to Wogaman, some neoconservatives tend to associate
democracy and even capitalism to Christian values. Some are committed to a secular society
and reject the involvement of the church in politics while allowing the individual
participation of Christians. For Wogaman, “neoconservatism may ultimately be too reactive,
too defensive to provide a suitable framework for serious Christian thought about politics.”13
Their reaction against liberal politics leads easily to self-righteousness.
Fourth, evangelical perspectives from right and left. Wogaman uses the term
evangelical to refer to a religious Christian political force in America that emerged in the last
decades of the 20th century. This movement is deeply committed to the Bible message. The
right side stands for free market and limited government, and against the legalization of
abortion and the legitimization of homosexual marriage. They argue for a Christian nation
with Christian values that should be displayed in public places. For Wogaman, their stance is
primarily reactive and are not to be taken seriously.14 On the other hand, the evangelicals on

9 Jacques Ellul, The Political Illusion (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967).
10 Jacques Ellul, The Ethics of Freedom, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eardmans, 1976), 379.
11 James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury Press, 1969), 219.
12 Wogaman, Politics, 103-122.
13 Wogaman, Politics, 122.
14 Wogaman, Politics, 133

4
the left adhered to a conservative theological orientation and to a liberal political agenda.
They stand for civil rights, prison reform, welfare benefits, and international peace among
other reforms.
And fifth, mainstream liberal Christian perspectives. This last view is called by
Wogaman “mainstream” because he refers to the majority of theologians and ethicists in
America. Also related somehow to mainstream Protestantism. And “liberal” because writers
on this side can be labeled as political liberals. Wogaman sees an indirect influence of the
social gospel movement, an orientation to consequentialism, and the influence of Reinhold
Niebuhr. According to Wogaman, they take seriously the sinful condition of humanity. Since
we live in a fallen world we cannot establish completely the kingdom of God on earth.
Therefore, political questions are realist question concern about actual provisional good or
limited evil. They highlight the importance of the participation of Christians in social change
and the church as a political actor. They stand for public safety, overcoming poverty, civil
rights, and many other specific reforms for the common good.
These five Christian perspective on politics offer good insight but also present some
flaws. The pacifists do not see that violence sometimes is a necessary evil and that some
valuable achievements have been brought by revolution. Sometimes the purposes of God for
people need to overcome situations that can only be overcome by the use of force. Moreover,
the liberationist sometimes forget that it is useless to change political structures without
sharing the transformative and redeeming power of the gospel. The basis of the evil of
political systems is deeper than just a matter of politics. Therefore, the source of the problem
cannot be transformed only by political changes. The basic problem of humanity is sin not
government. Of course, the struggle against material oppression is part of the redeeming
power of God but yet it is more than that. Theology must speak to the material situation of
people too. God cares also for the clothing and feeding of people, and to solve these matters
the political order is determining. Christians should fight to overcome such difficulties.
However, the question is how. In the next and final section, I will offer my answer to this
question.

Christian participation in politics

To what extent should Christians participate in politics? How should we relate to the
government? What should be the stance of the church toward political issues such as
elections and the creation of public policies? As I showed, different Christian perspectives
offer different answers to these questions. It remains that the answers they offer depend to
some extent to the particular context from which each thinker is writing. For example, it is
probable that the reformist views toward politics of some American theologians would be
even revolutionaries if they lived in the oppressive context of Latin America rather than in
the wealthy context of North America. However, to offer my answer to the issue of Christian
participation in politics I will go to the heart of the matter. As I stated above, Christian ethics
is not only about what is the right thing to do but ultimately about who we are. To answer
how Christians are to participate in politics we need to answer first what kind of people
Christians are to be.
Jesus said that his disciples are not of this world (John 17:16), Paul wrote that our
citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20), and in two other writings of the New Testament
believers are called sojourners, strangers, and exiles (Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11). The
message of the Scripture is that the children of God are loyal ultimately to him, we are not of

5
this world. Nevertheless, we are in this world. The fact that we are not of this world does not
mean that we should not care about what happens here. We are also called to live out the
kingdom of God on earth and to pray with Jesus “your kingdom come” (Matthew 6:9). We are
called to be the salt and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16). We cannot avoid the fact
that we live in the world and our task is not to hide but to shine.
In their study on Christian ethics, Glenn Stassen and David Gushee argue that the
central norms of Christian ethics are love and justice. For them, love and justice are at the
heart of Christian teaching and are the values that shape the Christian character that the
kingdom people are to display. In their analysis of love, they interpret the parable of the
Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. They find four main aspects of love that are consistent with the
whole message of the Bible.15 First, love sees with compassion and enters into the situation
of the person in bondage. Second, love does deeds of deliverance. They emphasize that love
does, it is necessarily action. Third, love invites into community with freedom, justice, and
responsibility for the future. Fourth, love confronts those who exclude. The love that Jesus
taught are actions to meet the needs of those in bondage bringing them to community, a
community that does not exclude but loves even the enemies.
Furthermore, Stassen and Gushee maintain that justice is as important for Christian
ethics as love. They argue that the reign of God is one of the main themes of the teachings of
Jesus, if not the center of his proclamation. This concept of the kingdom is taken from the
prophets, especially Isaiah, and one of its main characteristics is justice. If justice was a major
concern for Jesus it should also be a major concern for Christians and, of course, for Christian
ethics. I agree with Stassen and Gushee that we need to take back Jesus to the center of
Christian reflection and value social justice for public relationships as much as we value love
for private relationships. Our Christian ethics, to be true Christian, needs to put Jesus and his
teachings at the center of our reflections. In that sense and going back to the question of
politics, love and justice are to be the norms that lead the discussion.
Christians are people who follow Jesus and make him the Lord of their lives. That
means that Christians are people who live and act according to the values of the kingdom
that Jesus proclaimed. That is only achieved through the transforming power of God’s grace.
In Jesus, God showed that his intention toward the world was the deliverance of love, grace,
and mercy. Christian are people that receive such message and are redeemed by its
transformative power. When we become Christians, we enter a community that exist to
incarnate such message and to share it to the world. This reality has necessarily social and
political implications. Stanley Hauerwas states that “any Christian ethical position is made
credible by the church.”16 To be true Christian is not only to believe the right things, but also
about to do the right things. We do not become Christians for what we do, but we do because
of who we are. We are followers of Jesus Christ the one that preached the love and justice of
God’s kingdom. And we are children of the God that so love the world that gave the life of his
Son.
What does that mean politically? Does that affect what political system we must
prefer as Christians? Does that affect our vote in elections? I think so, but I think that the
heart of the matter is deeper. As we have seen there are Christian on both sides of the
political spectrum. Both argue for justice and freedom but they differ on how to achieve it.

15 Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 333-339

16 Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 70

6
Christians are to favor public policies that alleviate the suffering of people, that overcome
oppression, that bring justice, and that work for the common good of society. But I do not
think that we can offer a unique and definitive answer on what is the best way to reach such
goals. It always depends on the context and the actual situation of each particular society.
We live on a fallen world and the ideals of the kingdom of God will never be completely
realized in this era. The Christian task is not to bring a political or social change, the Christian
task is to be the church of Christ, to incarnate the message of the kingdom of God, and that,
of course, will bring social and political results. But we do not seek to change the world for
the sake of changing the world but for the sake of God’s love and justice. I agree with
Hauerwas in that:

The most interesting, creative, political, solutions we Christians have to offer our troubled
society are not new laws, advice to Congress, or increased funding for social programs –
although we may find ourselves supporting such national efforts. The most creative social
strategy we have to offer is the church. Here we show the world a manner of life the world
can never achieve through social coercion or governmental action. We serve the world by
showing it something that it is not, namely, a place where God is forming a family out of
strangers.17

I as have said repeatedly, being Christian is to be a certain kind of people. The Christian
identity is shaped by an experience with the narrative of God’s redeeming power. This
narrative creates communities that are grounded in the story about who God is and what he
does toward humanity. This communities shape the character of their members and
transform them into a certain kind of people that display the virtues of the kingdom of God
Jesus preached. And, this transformation operates through constant practices of love and
justice. That is the main task of the Christians, to be the church of Christ, a community where
the message of God is incarnate and where we practice the values of the kingdom in such a
way that transform us in a kind of people that love and display justice to others. There is
oppression, suffering, and hunger everywhere around us and Christians simply cannot turn
I blind eye to world. The transforming power of God’s love is intended for the whole human
being and not only for our spirit. Therefore, we all called to share that love to all those who
God wants to serve. McClendon argues that the church “is to be an example and foretaste of
what God in Christ intends for all human community.”18
Stassen and Gushee argue that Matthew 5:13-16 is critically important to understand
the insistence of Jesus on the teaching that his followers are to participate actively in the
gracious deliverance of the kingdom of God.19 They argue that doing is a fundamental part of
following Jesus and that practices are especially important for Christian ethics. Being the salt
of the earth means being different from the world and acting differently from its morally
corrupted practices. For them, the key phrase to interpret what does it mean to be salt is “if
salt lost its saltiness” (Matthew 6:13). Jesus was warning his disciple not to lose their
identity, to be careful of becoming corrupted with the values of the world, to remain loyal to
Jesus and his kingdom, and to distinguish themselves from the foolish world. By his
command to “not to hide” and “shine”, Jesus was disavowing the separatism of certain

17 Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 82-83.

18 James Wm. McClendon Jr., Ethics. Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986), 231.
19 Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 468-472.

7
communities of his time and inviting his disciples to be involved with the world displaying
the presence of God rather than isolating from the world. This teaching of Jesus is inevitably
social and political in the sense that Jesus invites his disciples to participate in the
deliverance of the kingdom to the world through active practices and external deeds. The
church should be a covenant community that through her fellowship models what is it to live
out the values of the kingdom (love, justice, mercy, inclusiveness, forgiveness, etc.). The
church is called to serve the world being a community that cares for the need of those inside
and outside.
Being a true Christian community means to raise our voice to denounce the injustice
and oppression, to support the creation and sanction of public policies that alleviate the
situation of those in suffering, to take actions to help people in need, those who are hungry,
those who are thirsty, those who are sick, and those who are poor. We will never see
completely the reign of God on earth, but we can incarnate the values of his kingdom and live
out the love and justice that Jesus preached and be body of Christ on earth to extend a hand
to overcome the injustices of the world. Furthermore, we are called not only to attend the
material need of people but, above all, the spiritual of humanity. It would not be a complete
task to help people in need. We need, at the same time, to share the gospel of God through
the proclamation of what he has done in Jesus Christ. People needs to know the story god
with his people and what he has done toward humanity, which is why we also want to love
the world. They need to be brought to a community that is grounded on this narrative and
be part of the people of God.

Conclusions
In conclusion, while the church is a redeemed community that represents an alternative
model against the worldly values of human society, we are not called to be separate to the
world but to display God’s love and justice to all humanity. We are a particular community
that was created on the story of God’s love toward the world. Being that community means
to be a certain kind of people that display to humanity the love and justice that God intended.

For Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of the human race by country or
language or customs. They do not live in cities of their own; they do not use a peculiar form
of speech; they do not follow an eccentric manner of life […] At the same time they give proof
of the remarkable and admittedly extraordinary constitution of their own commonwealth.
They live in their own countries, but only as aliens. They have a share un everything as
citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign land is their fatherland, and yet
for them every fatherland is a foreign land […] to put it simply: what the soul is in the body,
that Christians are in the world. 20

20Epistle to Diognetus, in Cyril C. Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1953), 216-219