Politics might be something that we shy away from because it’s so divisive—particularly in the current climate. But the gospel shapes us in the way we relate to our neighbours, and it gives us a fundamental lens to use in thinking about how we relate to one another and how we engage in political discourse.
In this episode of the CCL podcast, Peter Orr speaks to Michael Jensen about his new book, Subjects and Citizens, which aims to helps Christians think about politics in light of the gospel.
Links referred to:
- Subjects and Citizens: The politics of the gospel: Lessons from Romans 12-15 (Michael Jensen)
- Our August event: Affluent and Christian? Material goods, the King and the kingdom with Michael Jensen (21 August 2024)
- Support the work of the Centre
Runtime: 26:41 min.
Transcript
Please note: This transcript has been edited for readability.
Introduction
Peter Orr: In this episode of the CCL podcast, we’re going to be speaking to Michael Jensen about his new book, Subjects and Citizens. In this book, Michael helps us as Christians to think about politics in light of the gospel.
Politics might be something that we shy away from because it’s so divisive—particularly in the current climate. But in this conversation, we’ll think about how the gospel shapes us in the way that we think about how we relate to our neighbours, and how the gospel gives us a fundamental lens to think about how we relate to one another and how we engage in political discourse.
[Music]
PO: Welcome to the Centre for Christian Living podcast. Today, I’m joined by Michael Jensen, who’s going to talk to us about his new book, Subjects and Citizens, a book on the politics of the gospel.
Now, before we get to the book, Michael, could you introduce yourself: who are you? What do you do? And particularly, how did you come to know the Lord Jesus?
Michael Jensen: Thanks for having me, Peter! I’m delighted to be here. I became a Christian as a teenager. I’m from a Christian home, as many people will know, and from a ministry home. So at one level, I want to say that I’ve never known a time when I didn’t know the Lord Jesus, and God’s always been with me. But I think I really clung to a version of works righteousness as the older child. So I didn’t really understand grace until I was about 16.
When I did, it was at a conference at which John Stott and my uncle Phillip Jensen and my father Peter Jensen were speaking. But it wasn’t because of their speaking, although I do remember it all vividly. It was because I was with some university students: it was a university conference and I was there as the Year 11 kid with my parents. The students took me under their wing and they said to me, “Are you really a Christian?” and I had to say, “I don’t think I’ve ever really taken Jesus into my heart in that usual sense. I don’t think I know this idea of grace.”
When I understood it, I just remember waking up and feeling very different. I thought my life was on a different footing—that there was an assurance of my own identity, purpose, meaning, value that I had found in the death of Jesus for me—the love of God in that. So that’s my story and I think I just work out of that: I’m still living out of that reality.
Why write a book on politics?
PO: This book that you’ve written on politics, it’s politics shaped by that gospel of grace. Before we get to the content, why write a book on politics?
MJ: Well, two reasons to write a book on politics: one is I’ve kind of been interested in theology and politics for a long time—for close to 30 years, ever since I was an undergraduate at Moore College. 30 years? I guess it’s something like that! I wondered how the two might intersect. I’ve always been fascinated by that question, and I read a number of really great thinkers at that time who put it on the agenda for me. They had very different opinions: the American Stanley Hauerwas, the Croatian Miroslav Volf and the Irishman Oliver O’Donovan, who—oh my goodness! Those guys would disagree on almost everything. They showed me how the gospel had implications for the world that we live in.
Secondly, I just think that as a pastor, I’ve noticed how divided the church is over politics—how Christians are more marked by their disagreement than their agreement. I’ve been struck in recent years by how some of those convictions about politics are not shaped by the gospel at all; they’re shaped by our worldly allegiances to political positions, and people are more and more entrenched in them. So I want to actually recast that and help Christians think about political issues from their gospel convictions down, and find the deeper unity and purpose that we have in saying that Jesus is Lord, which is a political statement, after all!
Our political context
PO: You talk in the book about the particular context we’re in: there’s a lot of turbulence in the Western world and a lot of anxiety, and people maybe feel the loss of influence. We’ve enjoyed living in a society that’s been influenced by the gospel for so long, and that seems to be going, and that feeds into that sense of anxiety. So it’s a very, very timely book.
MJ: Yeah, I think that’s right, and I feel this myself. I feel like we’ve had a series of what you might call “defeats” in political, legal and constitutional terms over the years—mostly over issues to do with sexuality, but life and death issues as well. Society seems to be moving away from a majority Christian position in the West—especially in the English-speaking West. It probably has been that way in Continental Europe for a long time. The reaction for Christians is sometimes to think, “Well, we need to man the barricades. We need to storm—” [Laughter] “—we need to win it all back!” because of what we’ve lost. Society doesn’t look like the society that Christians are used to in many ways. We’re less and less listened to.
There was a time when archbishops’ sermons were published in the newspapers. Well, that was a long, long time ago. In fact, the death of a recent Sydney archbishop wasn’t even mentioned: he wasn’t even given an obituary in the newspaper. It seems there’s a loss of relevance in worldly terms.
I want to actually say, “Let’s not be anxious. This is just the ups and downs of history, and history forgets itself very, very quickly.” [Laughter] So we need a different view of who’s behind history—who’s really in charge. I think that will reshape our values and our approach to our current situation.
Politics 1.0 vs politics 2.0
PO: In the book, you very helpfully distinguish between what you call “politics 1.0” and “2.0”. Can you tease out that distinction?
MJ: Yeah. I wanted to help people understand that when you go to church and you proclaim Jesus is Lord, whether you’re singing it or you’re sitting under the word of the Lord, or whether you’re saying one of the great creeds that proclaim Jesus’ lordship, you’re making a political statement. When we live as the people of God under the authority of the lordship of Jesus, we are doing politics: we are recognising who is ultimately in charge. That’s what politics is about—who’s in charge. It’s about authority and government in the world, and Jesus is the ultimate ruler of the world. We’re doing something political. But we don’t notice that’s political. We’re not used to calling that political. So I call that “Politics 2.0” and I want Christians to kind of major, at the moment, on Politics 2.0 and see how Politics 2.0 impacts Politics 1.0
Politics 1.0 is the politics of the world—what we might call “temporal politics”—the world of prime ministers, presidents, kings, sultans, potentates, parliaments and dictators, and all the rest. That is an important part of the world. That’s an important part of the world in which we live. The questions that Politics 1.0 raise are really important ones. But they tend to not be the most important ones: they tend to be a matter of trying to sort out our wisdom in the midst of the turbulence of history, and so we’re going to have to think very hard about that. But ultimately, it should all come from our understanding of Politics 2.0.
As I said, my complaint at the moment is that I think Christians have forgotten Politics 2.0—Jesus is Lord—and are just operating out of Politics 1.0, which is “Well, I’ve always voted Liberal”, or “I can’t see anything good coming out of the Greens or the Labour Party”, or whatever it is, or “I watch this particular TV station”, or “I read this particular newspaper”, or “I live in this particular area, and so that’s how I think about these issues”.
Doing Politics 1.0 rightly
PO: So you have lots of helpful quotes related to that. At one point, you say, “Just being the church of Jesus Christ is a political act”.1 It is that idea that we being fundamentally under the Lordship of Christ is a political act. Yet as Christians, when we think politics, we think Politics 1.0. That’s what we obsess about. But actually, the clearer our understanding of who we are in Christ under his lordship, that means that when we are called to do Politics 1.0, we do it from a much healthier place.
MJ: Oh, absolutely! Historically, this has had an amazing impact. I would say the Christian church being the Christian church at its most authentic, living out the lordship of Christ at its best, has actually taught the world a better way to do Politics 1.0. We’ve taught the world about mercy—justice with mercy—about compassion, and about looking after the poor, the widow and the outcast. I shouldn’t say “we’ve” taught the world, but God has shown the world what that looks like through the church’s community. Love of neighbour.
Also, being suspicious of human rulers [Laughter]. The doctrine of sin is one that we really need for human politics: we need to know about human beings and their imperfections in order to do it well. In fact, the whole of Western democracy is built on a sort of basic mistrust [Laughter] of human beings when they have anything to do with power. But at the same time, an awareness that authority is a good thing and order is a good thing, and government is a good gift of God for us to flourish as people—as human beings.
The politics of sacrificial non-conformity
PO: A lot of the book is an exposition/meditation on Romans. We’ll get to that in a second, but I just want to talk about a description you use: you use the phrase “the politics of sacrificial non-conformity”,2 which I thought was a very powerful phrase. I wonder if you could unpack that a little bit.
MJ: Yeah, I kind of got this from Martin Luther King. He’d done some sermons on these very passages on Romans 12. They’re quite powerful. He’s not a perfect man by any means [Laughter], along with all our theological heroes. But I think actually he did Christian politics pretty well—in that he always referred people back to the kingdom of God.
In this case, he was looking at Romans chapter 12, and he was looking at the part where it talks about not being conformed to the pattern of the world (Rom 12:2), but instead offering your bodies as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1). That’s where I get “sacrificial non-conformity”—that is, in response to the sacrifice of Christ for us—supreme, ultimate and once-for-all sacrifice of atonement—we’re called also to worship him through the sacrifice of our bodies through what we do. In other words, I don’t think he literally means go out and sacrifice ourselves. That might take place, by the way; we might be martyred. But he doesn’t literally mean go and sort of put ourselves on altars and have ourselves killed in that way. But with what we do, we seek the good of the other, we operate as Christ did in that sacrificial way, and then not being conformed to the pattern of the world.
It’s interesting in Romans, that actually the pattern of the world is not simply—we tend to always think of sex when we hear these things—of worldliness, etcetera. But of course, worldliness is, in particular, deep conflict and division, and anger and violence. We’re not to conform to the world in that it sorts its problems out through anger, division and violence. Everything that Twitter is [Laughter] we’re not supposed to be! We’re actually a different kind of polity, then—a much more constructive, loving and actually peace-making one. I think we have every grounds to do that. I think moving away from the pattern of the world is exactly what’s called for once more.
The Book of Romans and politics
PO: The book, as I said, unpacks Romans 12-15. I think many people, when we think politics, we think Romans 13: we jump to Romans 13 about the governing authorities and being submissive to them. You do touch on Romans 13, and maybe we’ll talk about that in a minute. You’ve talked about how Martin Luther King directed you that way, but what do you think about that second or third major section of Romans? Why is it particularly helpful for thinking about this subject?
MJ: Well, I think it’s—and of course it’s not just Martin Luther King; if we go back to Augustine, Luther and Calvin, they’ve all meditated on the Book of Romans in this way. I think because, as you rightly say—I should say I’m very aware I’m speaking to a person with genuine New Testament chops here [Laughter]. But those first two sections of the Book of Romans, which talk about the rebellion of humankind and about the sheer grace of God in the gift of Jesus Christ through justification by grace through faith alone—that kind of overriding message of Romans, God in his authority, the sovereignty of God and justice of God, not only through power—through sheer power—but through the gracious gift of his Son, which then builds us into a new people (Eph 2:14-15)—that’s where we’re getting to in Romans 12. Paul has been beautifully setting things up for the way in which he’s now going to explain how we ought to live with one another. What kind of community are we to be under this new—well, not new, actually—but newly discovered, we might say, authority—the sovereignty of God in his righteousness that he shows us—that he gives to us? I think that sets us up beautifully for this grace-filled community that is to come.
You can’t really read Romans 12-15 without Romans 1-11. My book only deals with those few chapters in Romans 12-15, but really do please look at those first chapters of Romans [Laughter] before you get to Romans 12.
The Book of Romans and the politics of respect
PO: In your book, you have chapters on the politics of peace, the politics of respect, the politics of love, the politics of hospitality—all these ideas that arise from the text. We could talk for a long time on each of them, although I want people to read the book—
MJ: No spoilers!
PO: —this podcast is a teaser, rather than a replacement for the book. But focusing on politics of respect, that’s one that has a current cachet—this idea of respect. Can you say a little bit about those sections of Romans draw out that idea of respect?
MJ: Yes. It’s interesting that Paul tells us, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:18). He also tells us to give honour to those to whom honour is due (Rom 13:7). So in a way, he upholds the human institutions and structures that are given to us that we live in. You’ve got to remember that this is the Roman Empire [Laughter]: this is most likely Nero!
PO: It’s not 1950s England, where it’s [Laughter] relatively easier to be a Christian.
MJ: No, exactly! It’s very difficult to be a Christian. And by the way, the New Testament will say some pretty critical things about human power—for example, in the Book of Revelation. We must keep that in mind for a proper New Testament view of politics and political order.
But Paul seems to be saying to us, “Political order is a good gift from God. Threaten and undermine it at your peril.” God exercises his justice through political order, even when it’s run by pagans—even when it’s run by God-haters, in fact.
Of course, all sorts of complicated questions arise about when a government is really, really bad and corrupt. But remember: this is the Roman Empire, with Nero at the helm, and Paul still says, “Honour the emperor.” We’re still told in the New Testament to pray for them. So I feel like sometimes Christians are far too critical of our governments. I think it’s a cultural habit that we’ve fallen into—that we are disrespectful of our rulers—and we undermine political order and the institutions that so shape human life. My supervisor Oliver O’Donovan used to say, “When political order breaks down, it’s always women and children who suffer. In fact, it’s the poorest of the poor who suffer the most.” When we undermine the good of political order, even as we see it imperfect and corrupt, we had better be very, very careful of the implications of what that means and remember how good it is—how beautifully we live, even under the imperfect government we have.
[Music]
Advertisements
PO: The world is becoming wealthier and wealthier. Since the turn of the century, the net worth of many countries in the West and in Asia has tripled, poverty rates have fallen, and life expectancy has increased by more than six years.
At the same time, the divide between rich and poor has increased, with the richest one per cent owning almost fifty per cent of all the world’s wealth. Five to ten per cent of people still live in extreme poverty, even in the most affluent nations. Furthermore, while money can buy happiness, it can only do so up to a certain point, and wealthier people are more likely to be less generous and less kind to others.
How as Christians should we think about affluence? Is material prosperity a blessing or a curse, or both? Given the state of the world and income inequality, what are we to do with the riches God has given us? We’d love you to join us on 21 August when Michael Jensen, rector of St Mark’s Anglican Darling Point, will help us to see our earthly treasure the way our heavenly Father does.
And now let’s get back to our program.
Realists versus idealists
PO: At one point, reflecting on Romans 13, you say in your book, “What Romans 13 shows is that it is essential to be realists rather than idealists when it comes to government.”3
MJ: Yeah. I say perhaps that’s the opposite advice, and that’s to say that we expect too much from human governments. I think the best human politicians are actually quite pragmatic and, as I say, they are realists—that is, they want to do as best they can in the time they have. They recognise that the time they have in power is not heaven: it’s not the bringing of the kingdom of God in. They realise that restraining evil is actually one of the good tasks of government. You’re not delivering heaven on earth; you’re helping human beings to get along as best they can. Stopping us from killing one another [Laughter]: that’s a good thing! That’s no mean feat if we can do that. So I think the more idealism we see in human politics, the more we ought to be very, very cautious and afraid.
I’m afraid Christians have bought into this a bit. I feel like I’m hearing a lot of Christianised rhetoric that is idealistic about human government in a way that I think is at odds with the view of human government we see in the New Testament.
PO: So do you think there’s a tendency that we can almost try to seize—or try to look for something in our human governments that they will never provide, and we can only find that in God and his kingdom?
MJ: Yeah. A hundred percent. Salvation does not belong to earthly government. Salvation belongs to our God through Jesus Christ. That’s where we look for salvation. What God has given our human governments to do is to enact justice in this time as best they can—as I say, to minimise evil and do some good as best they can. I think Romans 13 paints that sort of picture.
By the way, I think sometimes people say that, from Romans 13, that’s all governments ought to do. I think it’s okay for governments to build roads and run schools. I don’t believe in a massively small view of government; I just think that the business of governing takes account of the times. It deals with the complexity of human life, and it tries to restrain sin. I think that’s all. I think the minute we hear people being idealistic about a human government, I think we ought to run for the hills. I think that’s very dangerous.
Some terms of engagement with politics
PO: The book is very helpful, Michael, in showing how the gospel shapes how we should relate to one another as the church, and as the church to the watching world, and how political that is, although that’s not the way that we often think about politics, but we should. You finish with the terms of engagement. Do you want to just talk about a few of the terms of engagement that you unpack?
MJ: My terms of engagement reflect what I’ve said already. I think, for example, that we should be critical, but not cynical. By that, I mean I think it’s great, because democracy is actually set up for this. It’s why Christians, I think, have decided to endorse it—mostly. Democracy allows us to deal with human sin, but not in such a way that we just say, “Ah, it’s not worth it!” because it is worth it! It’s worth continuing to root out corruption. It’s absolutely worth it, living in a land in which bribery is dealt with properly. It’s worth dealing with persistent violence: even though it keeps popping back up, it actually is worth it. I think be critical, as in rightly critical as human politics is to be debated, but be not simply, “Ah, there’s no point.” I don’t think God wants us to do that. I don’t think Paul invites to do that in Romans 13 or in the whole of Romans 12-15.
I think actually, we should be hopeful. We’re not putting our hope in political solutions, but we do see God doing extraordinary things. We know that God changes the human heart. So I think we can pray for justice—for just outcomes. It would have been great to pray, as people did, for the dismantling of Apartheid in South Africa, and for peace in Northern Ireland, for instance. I think it’s right to dare to hope in those situations.
I think love of neighbour ought to characterise Christian thinking. [Laughter] What a radical idea!
PO: At one point, you say, “Politics is a protracted argument about what it means to live as neighbours”.4 You’re tying in the idea of politics and the very basic Christian call to love your neighbour.
MJ: Yes! It’s difficult to love your neighbour. [Laughter] We have lots of rules about trying to help us to love our neighbour. Some people would say, “Oh well, actually, this has no place in human politics.” I’ve heard that said. But I don’t think Christians can ever abandon the idea of love of neighbour—especially Jesus’ command to love our enemy. I think if we understand that command, it’s evidence we’ve understood the gospel itself. I think it’s the most important thing that Jesus said—repeated by Paul in Romans 12-15. It’s amazing how many echoes of Jesus’ teaching there are in Romans 12-15. I think that’s a real litmus test for Christian thinking about politics.
I do think order and authority are good, and anarchy is not good. So we don’t tend to be revolutionaries. It takes a lot for a Christian like Dietrich Bonhoeffer to think, “Well, no. [Laughter] This guy5 ought to be killed. We ought to overthrow this government.” I don’t think we do civil disobedience readily.
Of course, we must obey God rather than men, and so we’ll always refuse an order that puts us at odds with God, and we will do that to the point of suffering and death. Of course. But where it’s more complicated than that, I think we hesitate and think, because undermining order is tough—or is really tricky for Christians, given what we know.
I think also we ought to model God’s concern for the poor, the outcast and those on the fringes. Christians have always done this, and I think Christians have been at their best when we’ve done this. We have an enormously long tradition of this across all parts of the church. There are some extraordinary works from the ancient world that talk about this too—from the Church Fathers and often from the women who were among them as well.
I think we seek to make peace, so I’m alarmed when I hear a bellicose Christian. We take no joy in what is sometimes necessary to do. I think, war is sometimes necessary, but it’s not—there’s to be no pleasure in it.
PO: Celebration.
MJ: No. I think also it’s too easy to talk about what’s happening in the Ukraine or in Gaza and not to talk about what’s happening in your own family, or in your own church community. Making peace includes that. So I always want to challenge Christians to be peace-makers where they are, and not just be “clicktivists”, as we call it now [Laughter], but actually do that.
I guess those are roughly my terms.
Conclusion
PO: That’s brilliant. Thank you so much, Michael. Thanks for being on the podcast. Thanks for the work in producing the book, Subjects and Citizens: The politics of the gospel. I recommend it for helping us to think through the very heart of our faith and how that should impact us as we love our neighbour, which is, as you say, an extremely political act. Thank you, Michael!
MJ: Thanks for having me, Peter!
[Music]
PO: To benefit from more resources from the Centre for Christian Living, please visit ccl.moore.edu.au, where you’ll find a host of resources, including past podcast episodes, videos from our live events and articles published through the Centre. We’d love for you to subscribe to our podcast and for you to leave us a review so more people can discover our resources.
On our website, we also have an opportunity for you to make a tax deductible donation to support the ongoing work of the Centre.
We always benefit from receiving questions and feedback from our listeners, so if you’d like to get in touch, you can email us at ccl@moore.edu.au.
As always, I would like to thank Moore College for its support of the Centre for Christian Living, and to thank to my assistant, Karen Beilharz, for her work in editing and transcribing the episodes. The music for our podcast was generously provided by James West.
[Music]
Bible quotations are from THE HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by International Bible Society, www.ibs.org. All rights reserved worldwide.
Endnotes
1 Michael P Jensen, Subjects and Citizens: The politics of the gospel: Lessons from Romans 12-15 (2024: Matthias Media, Sydney) 27.
2 Ibid, 29.
3 Ibid, 96.
4 Ibid, 122.
5 Adolf Hitler.
Photo by Marcus Reubenstein on Unsplash.
