Book Review - A Public Faith by Miroslav Volf

In A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good, Miroslav Volf argues that religious people should be able to bring their views about what makes a “good life” to the public forum.  This does not mean that Christians (Volf writes from a Christian perspective and predominantly to a Christian audience) serve the common good through theocracy, but instead serve it by being one of a plurality of voices discussing what makes a healthy society.  The Christian contribution to this discussion should be rooted in the life and words of Jesus instead of ideology.  Volf’s argument has two parts.  In Part One, Volf acknowledges that Christianity “malfunctions”.  Highlighting where Christians have erred in their approach to the good life allows Volf to suggest a corrected vision.  In Part Two, Volf discusses how to present the corrected vision in a religiously and politically pluralistic culture.


Volf begins by pointing out the obvious.  The church “malfunctions” in that it does not meet its standards.  Malfunctions fall into one of three groups.  The first group relates to failing to understand Christianity as a prophetic religion.  Prophetic religions seek to transform the world.  Christianity malfunctions if it neglects its prophetic role and instead brings people to God but fails to expect this to transform the world.  

Even when understanding its prophetic nature, Christianity can malfunction.  As a prophetic religion, Christianity includes “ascent” – when a person encounters God to receive a message – and “return” – when this message is brought to the church.  Ascent malfunctions prevent the prophet from communicating with God.  This can happen by functional reduction, where the prophet no longer recognizes God’s authority.  Another way is idolatric substitution, when the prophet puts something else in God’s place.  Return malfunctions mean the prophet receives a message without delivering it.  Perhaps idleness of faith has set in and the prophet does not allow faith to impact all of his or her life.  On the opposite extreme, coerciveness of faith sees the prophet push him or herself on unwilling people.  

Christians can avoid idleness and coerciveness by understanding the relationship between human flourishing and God.  This is how properly functioning Christianity contributes to the public forum.  The most important contribution Christianity can make is the concept of flourishing.  Flourishing says that satisfaction leads to pleasure and that pleasure does not lead to satisfaction.  Flourishing is not exclusive to Christianity.  Christianity, however, uniquely teaches that a loving God created people to love and promised good things for his creation.  Flourishing therefore cannot exist without compassion.  The Christian presentation of flourishing must show how the Christian understanding of God and humanity affects society, show that loving God and neighbour allows for flourishing, and live according to the belief that God is necessary for flourishing.  

In Part II, Volf suggests how Christians living in a pluralistic, multi-faith society can present their idea of human flourishing.  He begins by addressing Christian identity.  Christian identity should be different from other worldviews so they do not blend together, but it should be similar to other worldviews so other people can approach it.  The different-similar balance happens by “internal difference.”  This means that Christians adopt parts of the surrounding culture and use these cultural elements as means of following Jesus.  While Christians should reject some parts of a culture, a Christian should never absolutely abandon culture.  Instead, Christian engagement with culture should share – not impose – what Christians see as needed for life to flourish.

To be engaged with a culture means sharing wisdom.  The Christian faith obliges its followers to share wisdom.  Sharing wisdom is an act of neighbour love.  Christians should share wisdom by living according to it.  The lifestyle of Christians should be an invitation for others to become followers.

Sharing wisdom requires Christians to accept that liberal democracy entitles other religions to grow and to have a voice.  Christian teaching accepts religious plurality.  There is one God; we are all equal before Him; God commands that we love our neighbour as ourselves; we cannot claim an authority over someone else that we would allow others to have over us.  Therefore, Christians cannot force belief on others any more than followers of other faiths can force belief on Christians.  Religious plurality, however, does not mean that all religious are essentially the same.  They are not, meaning that disagreements are likely.  Such disagreement – when civil and respectful – is good.  Without disagreement, democracy is impossible.

Volf concludes that Christians should acknowledge both the similarities and differences that Christianity has with other faiths.  Overemphasizing similarities requires that all voices conform into one voice.  Such an emphasis perverts plurality.  Actual plurality acknowledges and accepts differences.  Such plurality allows Christians to acknowledge that other religious traditions see the importance of flourishing.  By making this acknowledgment, Christians can demonstrate how their method of flourishing differs from those of the other traditions.

A Public Faith is helpful as I consider social justice.  The main argument provides a useful way to approach political engagement around justice issues.  Details within the argument provide specific ideas to consider when advocating for social justice.

I am glad that Volf eloquently argued that religious people and their ideas could contribute to a discussion about quality of life.  I want to see justice because of my faith.  This does not mean that I will “Christianize” justice issues.  This is neither necessary nor useful.  It does mean that my ideas about justice come from what I believe about God and his creation.  I can’t talk about justice without God poking his head in.  If I exclude God, I am not being genuine.  If the faith community does indeed have a part to play in social justice, the ideas that the faith community have about justice need to be heard.

Volf’s awareness that his argument could suggest theocracy is also helpful and is why the detail of his argument is important.  We live in a pluralistic culture, so the Christian voice should intentionally exist within this plurality.  Being intentional will prevent an attempt at theocracy.  Volf’s point that a theocracy necessarily corrupts love of neighbour is insightful.  Faith-based advocates for justice should understand that we are part of a society and we cannot impose our will, as altruistic as we think it is, on everyone else.  Social justice comes from a willing society.  Willingness requires a collective change of mind (and heart, I would contend) that sees everyone as having an inherent dignity.  Theocracy imposes.  Justice loves.

Volf also made me question my goal as an advocate for social justice.  I had never considered the difference in the approach to satisfaction that flourishing suggests.  I don’t think I have fallen into the trap of seeing justice purely as a concept that is interesting to write and read about, but I definitely haven’t decided what my standard of success is.  Justice will take time to achieve.  Volf makes me wonder.  Should I stop thinking about “social justice” and start thinking about “flourishing”?  That social justice is absent means that someone is guilty of injustice.  Injustice is sin and therefore requires repentance.  If we approach the discussion about social justice as an issue of flourishing, we can serve both the oppressed and the oppressor.