A howl of anguish is the most frequent response by Christians as the church continues to see how its influence is diminished in the UK. Indeed, this diminishing is sometimes portrayed as the beginnings of persecution as some on the right become ever more strident in their views. Whatever our views on this, we would all have to agree that the church is becoming more marginal in its influence on Western society today. The question is what do we do about it? And Stuart Murray turns to this subject of how the church works with the state in his chapter on mission in a post-Christendom landscape.

Rather than offering firm examples, Murray lists a number of principles that we should work with. How it will look on the ground will, of course, vary from region to region and between different levels of government. But this lack of detail in an alternative model will draw some criticism from those who wish to hold onto the Christendom system. To these critics, Murray offers these responses. First, those who acknowledge that Christendom had flaws rarely ask the question whether those flaws were incidental or inherent to the system. Murray argues that they were inherent and that therefore the system itself has to go otherwise we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. Second, the fact that alternatives have not been fully formed is not of itself a validation of Christendom. A system that has been in existence for centuries will not be deconstructed overnight and it is also the case that those churches that choose to work from the margins may well have different priorities and will not see the developing of political strategies in response to that marginalisation as one of those.

What are the principles that the church should base its relationship with the state on?

• The state should be understood as one of the ‘powers’ referred to by Paul, and though it is fallen and prone in particular to idolatry, it is still capable of being redeemed. Being fallen means that it is imperfect and has many faults.

• The church should recognise that the church is only one such ‘power’ and that its achievements are limited – especially in a world where global markets hold such sway.

• The church should be free from the state as should the state be free from the church. Neither should be in a position where they are controlled by the other.

• A call for justice in issues such as poverty should be the guiding principle, rather than order.

• Christians should give their primary allegiance to God rather than any party or nation.

• Having seen the abuse of top down authority, the church should be suspicious of such action. Grass-roots action and influence from the bottom up is to be preferred.

• Rejecting the idea that the end justifies the means – so often used to justify the abuse of power and even the use of violence.

We would also need to realise that much political action these days happens outside the political party system with local community action groups working on individual issues as when they are needed. The church needs to take heed of the general distrust that the public has of politicians and that being part of the system may take further away from their communities.

With these principles in mind the church can then engage with the state. Murray is not calling for the church to withdraw from civic life but rather to rediscover its prophetic role.

Thanks for reading. Why not share this post with your friends? Click on the bar below.