Rendering unto

Last updated on: June 28, 2021 at 1:33 pm by Fred Clark

Rendering unto 2021-06-28T13:33:07-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It’s hard not to like Philip Yancey. After all, he seems to like you. And, in contrast to many other best-selling white evangelical authors, he seems to like God. That’s a major recurring theme in Yancey’s books and his long-running columns — the idea that God is worth liking because God is actually good.

That’s where this interview with Yancey from last week starts, discussing the “ungrace” of the “fundamentalist, rigid, legalistic” faith he was raised in. In that form of religion, God is not treated as someone or something good, but as someone or something “holy” and pure — so far beyond our human notions of goodness that God transcends, and contradicts, what we imagine as good. It’s hard to like such a God because, again, if God is like that — “good” only in a way that contradicts what we understand as goodness — then God clearly doesn’t like us very much either.

A while back, I slapped together this image of Bob Ross painting Philip Yancey as a disposable little visual gag about their hair, but it also illustrates something true about Yancey and his idea of God.

For Yancey, if God is God, then God must be at least as kind, patient, loving, and joyful as Bob Ross. If you’re redefining God’s “goodness” in a way that suggests God is less kind or less loving than the late Happy Painter, then you’re misunderstanding both goodness and God.

If you’re familiar with the arcane fights of the early church, you may recognize that in this line of reasoning I’m flirting with something some early church fathers fiercely — if unconvincingly — condemned as heresy. So let me be clear that Yancey himself never makes this argument in these terms. But I’ll gladly say it here: If you think God is less good than Bob Ross, then you’d be better of worshipping Bob Ross.

That is mostly a joke. But it’s a joke that invites us to imagine what our world might look like if the millions of our neighbors currently devoted to an unlikable God who doesn’t like us were, instead, gathering each week with their brushes and pallets and easels to paint happy little trees ad majorem Bob gloriam. That would certainly make for a very different world and, the more one imagines such a place, the more one has to admit it would likely be a better world.

All of which is to say, again, that I like Philip Yancey and I like his idea of God as a God who likes us and who is worthy of being liked.

But Yancey’s interview with Bob Smietana isn’t merely nice, it’s also thoughtful and thought-provoking — particularly this bit from the end:

So often the church seems more interested in cleaning up society, you know, returning America to its pristine 1950s. That’s the myth we have — we are making America pure again, cleaning it up.

Jesus lived under the Roman Empire, Paul lived under the Roman Empire, which was much worse morally than anything going on in the United States. They didn’t say a word about how to clean up the Roman Empire, not a word. They just kind of dismissed it.

So, why are we here? Well, we’re here to form the kind of community that makes people say, ”Oh, that’s what God had in mind.” We’re here to form pioneer settlements of the kingdom of God, as N.T. Wright puts it. It’s about demonstrating to the world what the whole human experiment is about.

This is a fine, winsome description of one tradition of Christian political thinking, one that attempts to sharpen Christians’ moral responsibility by emphasizing the boundaries of our political responsibility. Our responsibility, it says, is not to involve ourselves in this world’s worldly politics, but to create an alternative to that world by demonstrating the beloved community through our “pioneer settlements of the kingdom of God.”

The idea here is very much like the argument popularized by Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon in their books Resident Aliens and After Christendom. It’s an idea or ideal of Christian politics best embodied, perhaps, in the beautiful and inspiring example of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, the Huguenot Christian village in Nazi-occupied France where some 5,000 Christians sheltered more than 5,000 Jews. The exceptional story of that beloved community would be a powerful argument in favor of this alternative politics if it were not, alas, so very exceptional.

We could push back at Yancey’s description of Jesus and Paul as “dismissing” the Roman Empire by noting that this dismissive attitude was not at all reciprocal. And there are other critiques one could make of this longstanding, (sort of) apolitical view of Christian politics. But my point here is not to criticize this particular strain of Christian political thinking nor to merely categorize it a la H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture.

What I want to point out, rather, is how this tradition — like most of our traditional strains of Christian political thought — fails to offer adequate guidance to Christians who are also 21-century American citizens. “Render unto Caesar” doesn’t correlate neatly to our context because, in a sense, or in theory — and in some ways tangibly more than just in theory — we are Caesar. We the people remain engaged in the “unfinished work” and the great experiment of living out some approximation of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

That bit from the Gettysburg Address — delivered by a president who did more to consolidate and centralize the power of the federal government than any elected leader before or since — has always been regarded as more of a lovely bit of rhetoric than a meaningful description of reality. As I wrote several years ago:

That’sallwellandgoodintheory we rush to say, as good sophisticated cynics, but in practice it’s always been — and here we can insert any one of a number of popular competing critiques for why stuff is effed up and bullstuff and why representative democracy has never been representative nor democratic, etc. etc. That lofty phrase from the Gettysburg Address might as well be Patti Smith singing “The People Have the Power.” It’s all just naive hippy nonsense. (Patti was more punk than hippie, but, you know …)

And those critiques are not wrong, either.

But this savvy dismissal of the reality of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy — it becomes, in effect, a dismissal of the possibility of such a thing, an argument that puts such emphasis on the vast ways in which it has never been true that it winds up convincing us to abandon any efforts to make it closer to something true. This plays into the hands of authoritarians who do not want it to become true (and of their mindless lackeys who long to be ruled by actual Caesars).

Whether it’s the Hauerwasian strain of Christian political thought Yancey commends here, or it’s some variant of two-kingdom Lutheranism, or even the Neo-Confederate, Neo-Puritan white Christian nationalism of the religious right, most Christian political thinking has reinforced this anti-democratic, authoritarian tendency by failing to grapple with the possibility of Christian citizens as anything other than subjects of the governing authorities.

We need to do a better job of imagining what our responsibility entails if we allow ourselves to imagine that we the people are or could be, ourselves, those governing authorities.

See earlier: “Of, by, for” and “Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address.”

evangelicals

church

church & state

Previous Post

June 25, 2021

'Hard to plan the day'

Next Post

June 29, 2021 'They are living out a horror story'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which prophet had a vision of God standing beside a destroyed altar?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Amos Joel Micah Ezekiel