Introduction

It has been recently argued by Rev. M. Kyle Edwards of Holy Trinity Church that when engaging in conversations about politics, one should adopt a posture of humility and prioritize listening and understanding over attacking and demonizing. His argument has two prongs, with the first focusing on the fallibility of man, and with the second focusing on the fallibility of the political system.

The Fallibility of Man

You could be wrong about: 1) your own underlying beliefs (e.g., about perceived facts, absolute truths, the wisdom or morality of any given end, etc.); 2) the best policy or means to achieve an end; or 3) the intentions or context of your conversation partner. Given your own fallibility, and therefore the possibility that you may be wrong about a great many things, it is advisable to not assume a position of superiority over others when conversing about politics. Demonizing others stems from a sense of pride and blind self-assurance–especially in assumption that you could not possibly be wrong about any of the above items. Rather, adopting a posture of humility characterized by listening to others will enable empathy and understanding of an alternative position. Understanding an opposing argument or point of view will reveal the rationality–and even the humanity–of others, which does not necessarily condemn your own view to the category of immoral or irrational. But it does enable “sanity” in the sense that you are not a lone voice of reason in an “insane” world, but rather that others may simply disagree for a variety of reasons.

The Fallibility of of the Political System (or Politics Cannot Save)

Politics is a manmade system of governance, and as such cannot answer the ultimate questions of sin and death. As such, Christians are not to treat politics as an idol. When seen as the answer to all social ills, politics may be treated as a religion–but it is a false religion. So humility, again, is the advisable posture to maintain sanity in our contemporary political climate, because politics does not have ultimate significance.

Conclusion: Humble Engagement

Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable either to engage or not to engage in political conversations. But if you do engage, do so in a spirit of humility. And be aware that others adopt positions and make arguments different from your own not because they are evil or irrational, but because they are reasoning from a different set of presuppositions, values, and contexts (e.g., liberalism vs. conservatism as pursuing differing visions of the good and attempting to preserve different liberties at the possible expense of others). It is up to you to either seek to understand them or to demonize them.

Initial Responses

Initial responses to Edwards’ argument fell mostly, in broad terms, along the lines of: 1) when should I engage in political conversations; 2) when should Christians be outraged (and how does that differ from “backbone”); and 3) what are some practical strategies to cultivate humility in this context?

Edwards’ answers fell mostly, in broad terms, along the lines of: 1) it is ok not to engage in political conversations; 2) there has been outrage, but it is better to seek to listen and understand; and 3) practice “echoing” to better build empathy with your conversation partners, which will enable you to articulate your opponent’s argument accurately, and enable them to hear their own argument repeated back to them (which signals understanding and could trigger a response to invalidate their own argument if perceived as irrational).

But above all else, Edwards argues, Christians must not place their “trust in princes,” (see Psalm 146:3), as in them “there is no salvation.”

Nuances to Adopting a Humble Posture

A posture of humility is, in fact, essential to recovering a sane character to our national (and international) civic discourse. For Christians and non-Christians alike, the first premise–that we are fallible–should be largely uncontroversial (though for some there may be disagreements regarding the limits of fallibility as extended to the faculty of human reason). However, the second premise presents a more difficult question, since the view of politics as a saving institution has been prevalent for as long as man as used political governance as a means for personal power.

The Role of the State in Social Change

That being, said, the question of what it means to one to “place hope in princes” is a difficult one to uncover, and differences between competing political ideologies more complex than “one is for individual liberty” or “they both wish to protect different freedoms.” Against the backdrop of “which morality” and “which freedoms” is the question of “what role does the state have to play in achieving social ends?” In other words, in our contemporary climate, a prime point of division is whether or not the state is the prime mover and determiner of social change.

That may not seem like a controversial proposition, but that is because it has been a cultural assumption for the past several decades. But it has not always been so, and that is not the proposition found in the Bible. For the Christian, the primary engine of social change has always been God, who has worked in various ways through various nations (his own people as well as others), through various institutions including the church, and through families and individuals.

This is not to say that politics is inherently evil or useless or an arena unfit for Christian presence. On the contrary, the political realm is an important one, because the role of government was bestowed with a vital role–to dispense God’s justice in the temporal realm. As with all fundamental human institutions, it had its origins in divine ordination. However, it was corrupted by sinful men, and is in need of redemption.

If it must be redeemed, then it cannot, of course, be the means of redemption. But here is where the non-Christian differs.

The Means of Social Redemption

To the atheist, there is no higher power, no divine intelligence, no personal, loving, and just God. So there is nothing else but the will to power, and the state as the extension of man ascends to the office of the divine and becomes the arbiter of right and wrong, and an offense against the state becomes the ultimate sin. Dissent from the state becomes heresy. This what we see in all secular political ideologies from Communism to Fascism.

The Christian finds himself in similar territory when he depends on the state to instantiate his vision for utopia or when he declares ultimate moral judgments based on what policies are adopted and which are rejected. Not only is his hope for salvation then placed in the human institution of government–for he relies on the state to be the primary and perhaps sole engine of social change–but he aligns the interests of the state with the interests of God. That which the state declares to be moral is what he also declares to be moral, and what the state declares to be immoral is what he also declares to be immoral. And those who belong to the proper political party, support or denounce the proper legislation, or express the proper political opinions are righteous–and those who do not are evil.

Remember: the state’s interests are not necessarily aligned with those of God. God’s interest is his own glory. God’s interest is the good of his people. God’s interest is love and justice. The state’s interest is often to supplant God.

Christian Political Engagement

Again, this is not to say that Christians should disengaged from politics. By no means. Rather, this means that Christians should step forward into the fray and recognize the political for what it is–a means of grace provided by a loving God who sought to enable man to govern himself in the temporal realm in a practical and tangible way. Government metes out justice with scales and a sword. But it is supposed to be God’s justice, and not its own. As long as Christians are well aware of their own limitations and sinfulness, and as long as they truly seek first the kingdom of God (not seek to instantiate the kingdom of God), the realm of politics is a good sphere in which to engage with humility and a hunger for the glory of God. One need only look at the examples of Joseph, Esther, David, Daniel, and Paul to identify various responses to politics among God’s people–and their means of engagement with the political realm were simply contextualized responses to God’s person and God’s word. Sometimes law and politics were used to advance God’s kingdom. Sometimes God’s people were subject to a hostile political regime, but still found a way to speak truth to power and serve God’s ends. Either way, there is always a way forward for the church.

The state may not be able to save, but that does not mean we withdraw from seeking its redemption and transformation. Nor does it mean that we abandon its use for achieving its legitimate ends of restraining evil, meting out justice, and allowing citizens to pursue the true, the good, and the beautiful–to pursue God. So how are we to do that?

In short, whether through personal engagement or through institutional change, both of which are necessary means of political engagement and transformation, all should be characterized by humility and an internalized sense of fallibility. Tactically, empathy and understanding should be pursued, and arguments rather than people should be attacked. A healthy respect for the human person should be evident in our discourse, and our ultimate hope for salvation and authority for morality should be obvious–Jesus Christ.

Thus, questions of belief, policy, and other’s intentions should always be guided according to Scriptural truths and principles.

Conclusion

To return to the beginning of Edwards’ argument:

We Christians are fallible and depraved creatures who have been redeemed and transformed by the saving work of Jesus Christ. Above all else we seek his glory and to enjoy him forever. When our desire to see a particular policy adopted or candidate elected or political aim achieved supplants our desire to see God glorified or submit to the Lordship of Christ or see ourselves and all others live in accordance with his glorious plan and under his rule, then we run the risk of idolatry. Ultimately, when we place the political over the theological, we place man over God.