“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” – 2 Chronicles 7:14
As most of you probably know, a few of us spoke at the City Council meeting on Tuesday. Our comments concerned the now infamous mural painted on 7th street by Forbes Middle School students which contains the exhortation to “Be Your Own Person” above a field of poppy flowers painted in the colors of various LGBTQ pride flags including the Bisexual Flag, the Pansexual Flag, the Transgender Flag, the Non-binary Flag and others.
My remarks aimed to provide some theological context for the ideology lurking behind this “artistic” expression so that the council would not be deceived into thinking that it was merely an attempt to protect a few individuals (as it is often framed), but to see it for what it really is, an attempt to fundamentally re-order society.
As a result of the meeting, the council suspended all City sponsored public art pending further investigation. Now, part of the discussion between the council and the Arts and Culture Board (who sponsored the mural) concerned the appropriate criteria for selecting artwork. And it seemed to be the general consensus that, whatever else it should be, public art should be a-political. Which represents a noble, yet naive aspiration, for public art is always political.
The very purpose of culture is to transliterate the sacred order into the societal order. To give us the language, symbols and practices necessary to not only understand the sacred, but to aid in our conformity to it. This is what art, in its true form, is intended to do. To be a threshold to the transcendent so that we might be conformed to its image.
And thus, what every cultural institution is about (what every piece of public art is about, whether the artist knows it, or not) is the project of conforming society to a particular vision of the kingdom of God. A vision which has obvious political ramifications. For bringing God’s will on earth as it is in heaven will dramatically change the civic landscape (as it did in the Ancient Rome Empire).
This conversation reminded me of a similar desire for political neutrality found in Christian circles. A common conviction that Christianity should be above politics. That it should simply focus upon the gospel and not entangle itself in civic affairs. Which, again I think is a noble, but naive aspiration, for the true gospel is always political. For it concerns the coming of God’s kingdom on earth. To think that won’t entail political change is rather shortsighted.
In the coming months I hope to offer a series of meditations upon the relationship between politics and the gospel, provocatively entitled: Political Evangelism (a title which comes from Richard Mouw’s seminal book on the subject). The purpose of the series, inspired as it is by Mouw’s work, is to provide a constructive framework for viewing Christian political activity in a positive light. To not only give biblical warrant to such endeavors, but to stir within us enough enthusiasm to engage in them ourselves, or at least to support those who do.
This morning, we begin by examining common misconceptions which contribute to political inactivity among Christians. Four assumptions which tend to kill enthusiasm for civic involvement. Premises which are so prevalent that they have taken the form of cliches. Bumper-sticker theological expressions which feel so right that they go unexamined, and yet they function as defeaters to political reform.
RECLAIMING POLITICS
The first cliche (or, misconception, or dismissal—reflection killers) is that “the redemption of the world doesn’t hang on politics.” Now, as cliches, these statements typically contain an element of truth. For the redemption of the world doesn’t “hang” upon political reform. But neither does it “hang” upon the proclamation of the gospel, or it’s confirmation in ministries of mercy, or its defense in apologetics, or any other human endeavor.
Rather, it “hangs” upon the sovereign will of YHWH, who “works out all things in accordance with the purpose of His will.” (Ephesians 1:11). In other words, the redemption of the world will only come to pass according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God as Peter proclaims in Acts 2.
But, once that divine efficient cause has been established, we are then free to ask about the means that God has chosen to carry out this redemptive plan, considering more carefully the part human activity is to play. The first thing we discover concerning this, as queer as it may sound, is that in His eternal wisdom God has chosen mere mortals as the means for expediting his redemptive purposes.
That the distribution of the eternal treasure is to be carried out in flimsy clay pots, as Paul calls us in second Corinthians. Or, as Peter more nobly christens us, a “royal priesthood, a holy nation... [whose purpose it is] to proclaim [the Lord’s] excellencies.” (1 Peter 2:9)
But this collective effort to testify to the Lordship of Christ includes the Spirit’s work of reclaiming and redeeming all that belongs to his majesty (which is, everything), including the world of politics. William Croasmun puts it this way: The gospel is a word that was used to declare the birth of a new emperor. Our speech heralds a new ruler, one hated by the Caesars and Herods who continue to kill innocents and crucify dissidents in an attempt to hold onto their power and thwart God’s reign.
Therefore, “we cannot transcend politics,” says Croasmun. Richard Mouw puts it similarly: The first coming of the son of man into the world was not only a challenge to individual sinners and ecclesiastical institutions; it was a threat to the political status quo. It was politicians who sought to kill Jesus shortly after he was born, and it was politicians who finally had a hand in his death.
Now, this political aspect of the gospel has often been muted by a rather restricted interpretation of Jesus’ comments on the political system of his day. For example, when asked whether Jews should pay taxes to the Roman Empire, Jesus responded, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.”
There is much to say about this passage and it’s theological use (like whether the ancient Roman Empire is really analogous to a modern democratic republic), but for the moment we should note that when a ruler impresses his image upon a coin, that action doesn’t cancel out the fact that the silver and gold on which it is stamped belongs to the Almighty.
“The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts.” – Haggai 2:8
Meaning that God has created the silver and gold that men make currency out of, and he calls them to use it in accordance with his will. And he holds them accountable when they do not. As beings pressed in the image of God, rulers must render unto the Caesar of Cesars what is his—everything, including themselves.
Similarly, as Mouw notes, the politician to whom Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world,” was the same politician whose seal Jesus broke as he came forth triumphant out of the tomb. All of which is to say that there is a lot more going on theologically in these passages than we commonly consider.
In addition to this, as scholar Alan Street has pointed out, “Jesus and his followers did not live or minister in a sociopolitical vacuum. They lived in occupied territory and were subjects of… a vast political domination system that conquered and controlled nations from Spain to Palestine and from the Mediterranean Sea in the south to the Black Sea in the north.”
Thus, Street concludes that when the early apostles traveled across the empire and preached that the Kingdom of God was at hand, calling on their listeners to repent, be baptized, and pledge their allegiance to Jesus as Lord, they challenged Imperial Rome’s assertion that it alone had a divine right to demand people’s loyalty. Emperors viewed themselves as divine figures, in Ancient Rome, ones who required ultimate allegiance (Offer up sacrifices to whatever gods you wanted, but Caesar was to be king. The Jewish leaders who crucified Jesus told Pilate “We have no king but Caesar.”).
Baptism was therefore viewed as a politically subversive act. Where, in defiance of the government, one would pledge his loyalty to King Jesus and not to Caesar. And such political resistance was one of the reasons why the disciples in the first few centuries were persecuted by the Empire. During that time of political oppression believers comforted one another not only with greetings in the name of “the first born of the dead,” but also in the name of “the ruler of the kings on earth.” (Revelation 1:5)
Now, all of this is not to say that the relationship between church and state, or the differences in responsibilities between individual Christians and the church as an institution require no nuance, or that a careful exegesis of passages like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 is unnecessary. The opposite is in fact the case. We will engage in a more complete discussion of these matters in future lessons, Lord willing.
But the point of emphasis at the moment is that the redemption that Jesus is working through his Spirit, among other things, is a political redemption. Therefore, our testimony must reflect this truth. It must speak to the new political life that is part of our inheritance—in the new heavens and new earth. A place where the nations will be redeemed.
Yet also, because the Spirit has been poured out, the work of redeeming these systems has already begun. The work of discipling the nations is underway. As is testified to by the history of Western civilization and the significant progress that has been made in the political lives of citizens (including the fact that the privilege of citizenship is now extended to all).
How can we even compare the limited freedom experienced in the Roman Empire with the almost boundless liberty of our democratic republic? (Now, of course, the spiritual/ethical rot of our culture is undermining this. We have been given a Republic and apparently, we can’t keep it. But you get the point.)
POLITICAL PROGRESS
According to Mouw, a second misconception which often discourages political reform is the belief that not much progress can be made this side of the eschaton. And here, there is not one cliche which is articulated, but a set of cliches. For example, dismissing efforts to address the problem of global poverty because “the poor will always be with us,” or resigning to the reality of national upheaval because “there will be wars and rumors of wars in the last days.” And many other similar dismissive kinds of statements.
Due to its daunting nature, political reform requires a lot of enthusiasm. For the odds are often stacked against us when we attempt to change the political landscape, which can then leave us feeling like a small shepherd boy fighting a lumbering bureaucratic giant. It can be like trying to slay leviathan. Especially when you are fighting alone.
Thus, pessimism is always crouching at the door ready to devour our zeal, but our views about the future can help us rule over it. Now, Christian’s rest their future hopes (ultimately) on the return of their King, Jesus. The time of the eschaton, when his kingdom will reign on earth as it does in heaven.
However, they disagree concerning the details of that event with much of the discussion centering around the “thousand year reign” of Christ mentioned in Revelation 20:6-7. The three most common interpretations of this text are as follows:
Premillennialism which understands the reference to a thousand years to be literal and as a period of time immediately following Christ’s return. And it generally sees the time leading up to that reign as a period of steep spiritual decline.
Amillennialism which takes the thousand years to be symbolic, as representing the triumphant re-establishment of God’s kingdom on earth which was accomplished through the death, resurrection, and coronation of Christ. And while the kingdom’s fullness will only be revealed at the second coming, its power and presence can be seen today in numerous ways.
Postmillennialism is the most optimistic view concerning the near future for it expects great gospel progress to precede the return of Christ (and indeed, to bring it about). Thus, it teaches that the parousia (i.e. the Second Coming) will take place after the millennium, after this period of widespread peace and prosperity in the world comes about.
It was the enthusiasm stirred by this optimistic approach which won the war for independence, and drove American financial prosperity, and tamed the Wild West and fueled the 1850s abolitionist movement, etc. When the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville came to the United States at the beginning of the 19th century and made his now famous observations, one of the things that stood out to him was how optimistic Americans are.
A remnant of that optimism remains. Although, it is quickly being replaced with a resentful pessimism. The point being that having an optimistic view of the near future (which comes from either a post or amillennial view) helps significantly to motivate political reform. Because if you think that all such efforts will only be frustrated (and likely soon), then maintaining enthusiasm for them may seem impossible.
However, I think that one can have the requisite fervor for civic activity regardless of which one of these views he holds. In other words, even for those who hold to the more pessimistic form of premillennialism (which sees the return of Jesus eminent and the decline of civilization unavoidable), have the necessary resources for stirring political action (To do so they would not have to act in a way necessarily inconsistent with their eschatology, as many people have argued).
For one might argue that Christians are not called to launch successful programs of reform (in terms of longevity) as much as they are called to launch programs. Meaning that what is to drive us (most fundamentally) is the command to bear witness (in word and deed) to the heavenly vision of the coming kingdom. Calling upon others to bring themselves in line with it.
This is our obligation even if our efforts are ultimately unsuccessful. As were Noah’s as he preached righteousness for 120 years bearing no fruit, warning people of the wrath to come. In such a situation, our job is not to go and hide under our bed and wait for the Day of the Lord to come, to retreat into our homes and wait for however long it takes for the seas of chaos to reach our doors. But rather to fight on the front lines against the madness (witnessing to the glory which is to come), knowing with absolute certainty that Christ will return soon and His kingdom will be established without end.
Meaning that your premillennial pessimism for the near future isn’t a sufficient excuse for avoiding the difficult task of kingdom building. You must build the kingdom anyway. Regardless of if you think your efforts will be successful or not.
A RETURN TO THE PATH OF RIGTHEOUSNESS
A third misconception which often discourages political reform, according to Mouw, is rooted in a “rigid distinction” that is often made between the political instruction of the Old and New Testaments. An argument which goes something like this: In the Old Testament, we find many passages addressing the political and social life of God’s people, Israel. The reason for this is that the nation was essentially a theocracy, a government created and run by God and his appointed leaders. There was no distinction between God’s people and God’s nation.
Therefore, it’s not surprising that we find the prophets speaking to issues such as war, poverty, economics, etc. Often calling the entire nation to repentance, and not just individuals. For this nation was created by God for a particular purpose.
In the New Testament, however, the people of God are not formed into a literal theocracy, indeed the church existed under “secular” rule for its first three hundred years and therefore the relationship of God’s people to the nation is very different.
There is a separation between the church and the state that didn’t exist in the Old Covenant. This is why the New Testament is devoid of political discussions, except for those which support the church taking an apolitical stance (some of which we have already mentioned).
Now, I’ve only sketched one version of the argument, which is always dangerous because it can be nuanced a thousand different ways (some will undoubtedly say that I’ve presented a straw man version), but hopefully you get the gist. To see the error in this line of thinking (maybe not so much the particular argument), Mouw asks us to consider a specific example.
It is certainly the case that both Old Testament Israel and modern “secular” governments (letting the word secular slide by, not neutral, but secular, every government is a theocracy the question is just who Theo is, perhaps better pagan) have often been guilty of the sin of hubris. Including America!
Now, whenever Israel ignored the counsel of God and pursued her own way (ending inevitably in corruption and widespread suffering), the prophet’s job was to call the nation to repentance. An exhortation to turn from their present course and return to the path of righteousness. In return, God promised to heal their lands. A means to restoration laid out to Solomon in 2 Chronicles 7:14:
“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”
Now, this promise is understood by many (it seems) to apply only to God’s special nation, Israel. Therefore, we can’t simply apply it to modern governments, for they don’t have the same relationship with God. For they are not called by his name. But suppose, for a moment, that a modern government were to pursue a similar pattern of disobedience. What would be the means for forgiveness and healing for that nation? (Unless you want to say that God has no interest in the nations obeying him. Which would be an odd position to take.)
Would it not be the same? Which is to ask: Has the path to righteousness for a nation changed since God spoke these words to Solomon? Well, the answer would seem to be “no.” The path to restoration is the same and it will remain the same until every nation is fully restored in the coming kingdom. Turn from your wanderings and direct yourselves in the way of righteousness is the command to every nation.
Just as the path to restoration is the same whether you are an unbeliever, or a believer. If we are counseling an unbeliever (who, let’s say, is involved in an adulterous relationship), would the advice we offer him be different than what we would offer a believer? Is the path to righteousness different depending on whether you are a child of God, or not?
No, the only difference is that for the believer we are calling him back to a path he has already been on, while for the unbeliever we are calling him to it for the first time. Wouldn’t it be odd if that principle only applied to individuals and not to nations, in the New Covenant? For does not God what to restore nations? Does not He plead through Isaiah:
“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other?” – Isaiah 45:22
Wasn’t Israel’s obedience to be an example for all the other nations of the world? Does not “righteousness exalt a nation, but sin bring reproach upon a people” as it says in Proverbs 14:34? And does not God appoint the civil magistrates of these nations? Which is to say, does he not give them their authority? And are they not his servants for rewarding good behavior and punishing evil? A service they are to perform in accordance with His will?
If the people of America would humble themselves, and pray and seek God’s face, and turn from their wicked ways, would the Redeemer not forgive their sin and heal their land?
RELIGION AND POLTICS
A final dismissing misconception comes from Stanley Hauerwas. Who notes the incoherence of the overriding cliche that “religion and politics don’t mix.” The only problem with “religion and politics do not mix” is that the phrase is one of the strongest examples we have of political rhetoric.
There is no escaping “the political.” To refuse to take a political stance is to take a political stance. Amen! It seems to me that we are without excuse. We must be engaging in the work of new creation and that includes political reform (while maintaining the separate spheres of church and state). Fulfilling our mandate: Reclaiming and renewing all things for the Lord Jesus Christ.
This opens a lot of questions, no doubt. Some of which I hope to address in the future. My purpose this morning was simply to show that the issues involved cannot be summarily dismissed with these cliches. For there is much more theology to consider than it might first appear.