After World War II a number of western theologians began to focus more on the issue of politics

related to the Christian faith and life. Three theologians that explored the social aspect of the
gospel are Karl Barth, Stanley Hauerwas, and Reinhold Niebuhr. While the three of them
considered that the message of Christ has something to say beyond the spiritual realm into the
social order, their views have some important differences. For example, while Barth and
Hauerwas make a clear distinction between the church and the world, Niebuhr seems to blur the
line that divides them. In this essay I will examine the views of these three twentieth century
theologians regarding the relationship between the church and the world. I will compare their
views to find out their similarities as well as their differences. And, finally, I will offer my own
thoughts about how the church and world are to be related and what the church is to be and do
with relation to the world in general and the civil order in particular.
In a text from 1946 Karl Barth writes about the relationship between what he calls the
Christian community and the civil community, which are the church and the state. He affirms
that the church’s task is to obey the Word of God and preach the gospel, whereas the state’s task
is to maintain order and peace, administer justice, legislate, administrate, and govern. In this
sense, Barth’s view is similar to Luther’s concept of the two kingdoms. The difference between
the church and the state is that the state does not know the Kingdom of God whereas the church
witnesses it. One is ecumenical, the other regional. One includes only Christians, the other
includes both Christians and non-Christians. Barth rejects the idea of a Christian state. For him,
such thing simply cannot exist. Church and state must remain what they are and do what they are
meant to do. Again, the primary task of the church is to proclaim the Kingdom of God. The state
is not supposed to do that in the same way that the church is not supposed to do what the state is
supposed to do, namely, to maintain the civil order.
Barth distinguishes between the civil and the Christian communities but, at the same
time, he affirms a positive relationship between them. For him, the church must recognize the
necessity of the existence of the state. While he notes the differences he also points to the
similarities. They both exist in an unredeemed world, both are imperfect, both are political, both
are to serve people, and both come from a divine ordinance. Therefore, there can and must exist
some kind of cooperation and even overlap in what both communities do. The church is within
the world, it exists in the same time and space as the state; therefore, the church must relate
positively to the world. And some of the constitutive elements of the civil community are
indispensable to the church. He argues that the church is also a political body and it cannot
remain indifferent to politics. While one is secular and the other Christian, they share common
interests. Thus, the church is to support the state in their common interest such as the
maintenance of peace. In sum, the church’s task in its relationship to the state is to be an
influence to it. The church is to witness to the state so that its activities are “parables of the
Kingdom of God.” Which means that the policies of the state reflect the values of the gospel.
That is, for Barth, the goal of Christian politics.
Nevertheless, that does not mean that the church is not critical to the state. Barth affirms
that no political system is the Kingdom of God, not even the best one. And no state can become
the Kingdom of God. Actually, says Barth, the church does not want any state to be the Kingdom
of God. The state is to remain the state not to become the church. For its part, the church is to
distinguish better political systems from those which are worse, support the former and resist the
latter. It is part of the political task of the church the judge and criticize the state from the
viewpoint of the Christian faith. Such judgment is made according to the message the gospel, not
based on natural law. Moreover, Barth maintains that the church does not fight for her own
interest, but to serve God and what God wants for the world. The church fights for humanity,
freedom, peace, social justice, and equality, and against injustice, tyranny, violence, and
dictatorship.
Like Barth, Stanley Hauerwas also sees that the Christian message has a necessary social
significance. His main statement is that Christology is social ethic. This means that Christianity
is not only about doctrines or dogmas of faith but about practicing a way of life. Christians are
not defined by the beliefs they affirm intellectually, but by who they are in relationship to Jesus
Christ. Christians are those who follow the ways of Jesus. Hauerwas argues for the social
meaning of Christian discipleship because Jesus called into existence a certain kind of
community in which his followers are formed to be a certain kind of people. For him the story of
Jesus is a social ethic and the church must exemplify it. What says better who Jesus is are not
dogmas and metaphysical statements but the lives of the people in the Christian community who
worships and follows him. In other words, it is inseparable to know Jesus from how to follow
him. His morality is tied to his story. For Hauerwas, Jesus is the Kingdom of God. To know
Jesus is to know his story, and to accept his Kingdom is to accept him. The cross of Christ
reveals the character of that story and the theme of the Kingdom of God is the lordship of Jesus.
Thus, the Christian community is that in which Jesus is Lord and the members of that
community follow his way of life. The social ethics of the church is to be the kind of community
that lives out the story of Jesus.
Hauerwas is more critical than Barth regarding the relationship between the church and
the state. For him, the main political task of the church is to be the church. It is not the
responsibility of the church, as a community, to be involved in the political sphere of its society.
Its task is to embody the story of Jesus Christ. More specifically, that has to do with love. The
church is to be a community in which people love each other, and they love and serve those
outside the church. Thus, Hauerwas distinguishes more drastically than Barth between the civil
and the Christian community. The Kingdom of God judges the state and is oppose to all worldly
political system. The church is an alternative to the civil community. The church is a community
that tells a different story, the story of Jesus Christ. But the church not only tells that story, the
Christian community lives out the narrative of God’s love towards the world. This is one of the
reasons why Hauerwas is a pacifist. Because the way of Jesus is one of peace and peacemaking.
Therefore, those who follow Jesus cannot serve another master who embraces different values.
While Hauerwas goes further than Barth in the distinction between church and state,
Reinhold Niebuhr goes further than Barth in the positive relationship between church and state.
For Niebuhr, the church must actively participate in the struggle for justice through political
means. He argues that there are two wrong approaches to the relation between the church and
politics. One is to find no relevance at all between faith and politics. And the second one is to
equate religious and political commitments. Thus, Christians must avoid both extremes, one that
considers politics harmless and ordained by God, and the other which considers humanity with
no capacity for justice. Niebuhr rejects the position that sees political decisions as morally
ambiguous. Rather, for him, political issues represent various levels of morality. Thus, Christians
are to participate in politics supporting the better political activities, policies, and ideals.
At the heart of Niebuhr’s social theology is the doctrine of human sinfulness. He affirms
that we must not be too naïve and we must not be too cynical about humanity. Christians are
sinners living in a corrupted world, but figuring out how to live according to the Christian faith.
We must struggle for justice, exploiting human love but taking for granted human egoism and
sin. And Christians must begin by understanding the condition of humanity in the world. For
Niebuhr, the love Jesus preached is an impossible ideal. Therefore, in this fallen world Christians
are not to strive for the impossible ideal of love Jesus preached, but for its expression in the real
world which is justice. Thus, what the main political task of the church is to struggle for justice.
While these three theologians, Barth, Hauerwas, and Niebuhr, the social implications of
the gospel of Jesus, their views are noticeably different. Barth stands in the middle, Hauerwas
closely next to him and Niebuhr not that clos in the other side. Both Barth and Hauerwas reject
natural theology, embrace the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the source and norm of
Christian theology, and their views are deeply Christocentric. Their social ethics is profoundly
Christological. In that sense, their theology is similar, but also present some differences that have
been noted already. Barth’s dialectical thinking is seen in his view of the relationship between
the church and the state. Jesus Christ is the God-man, the revelation of the transcendent, hidden
God in human flesh. So the church is the community that receives God’s revelation, but it also
exists in the world. This means that the church participates in the civil order, must do it
faithfully. Thus, the main political task of the church is to obey God’s commands influencing the
state to produce political activities that are consonant with the values of the Kingdom of God.
But the church is also to judge and criticize evil political systems. On the other hand, Hauerwas’
Christology leads him to affirm that Christians are to be like Jesus, their Lord. And the Christian
community is a community that lives out the way of Jesus. In that sense, the main task of the
church is to be the church, a community that tells an alternative story, and lives out the narrative
of God’s love. While for Barth the church is a central part of the civil community, for Hauerwas
the church is countercultural. While for Barth the task of the church is to influence and impulse
the state, Hauerwas emphasizes the prophetic task of the church to challenge the state. Barth
argues that the church must set the example in our politics, whereas Hauerwas laments the fact
that the church has imitated the state in the way of doing politics. Finally, Niebuhr’s Christology
does not seem robust or even important for his social ethics. To be fair, he is thinking in terms of
the political sphere and the participation of Christians in it. Nevertheless, his views have more of
politics than Christianity.
I agree with these three theologians that the gospel necessarily has political implications.
If not, the gospel would be only abstract ideas. As long as the gospel is to be lived out, it has a
political sense. However, I would argue that the way in which Christians live out our faith
politically, depends highly on the context. In some contexts, the state and/or the society in
general are hostile to the Christian message. They openly reject the gospel, and they see
Christians as outsiders if not as criminals. In those contexts, it is much more difficult to impulse
or influence the state for the creation of just policies. The church needs to be the church in a
different way. In that sense, I find more helpful Hauerwas’ position. He argues against a certain
tendency in Christian theology to set aside the identity of Jesus as if his message was purely
abstract and spiritual. But there is no such thing as the gospel message separate from the person
of Jesus. He is the gospel. Therefore, to be a Christian is not to know certain doctrines, not even
only to believe them, but to live a certain kind of life, a life of following Jesus. And to be church
is to be certain kind of community. Therefore, I agree that the political task of the church is to be
the church. To live under the Lordship of Jesus and to tell his story. In some ways, Barth and
Hauerwas’ views are similar. First and foremost, the task of the church is to recognize and
participate in God’s rule. That is what Jesus Christ preached, the Kingdom of God. Which is
deeply identified with his person. Therefore, his followers are to live according to that story.
Being Christian and being the church is to be the kind of people and community that are formed
by Jesus’ story. We are those who follow Jesus in his way of life, a way of love, grace, and
peace. That does not mean that Christian cannot participate in politics, but that means that when
they do so Christians are to serve God as their only Lord. And the church relates to the state both
positively and negatively. The church is to support the state in their common interests such as the
maintenance of peace, but it is also to embrace its prophetic task criticizing, resisting the state in
its activities that oppose the message of the gospel.