The Church and Politics
I have been reading recently Bruce Waltke’s short book “Proverbs and Politics” which is a record of Waltke’s 2015 messages at an inaugural conference organised, in part, by The American Renewal Project - an organisation that aims to equip those in positions of authority. In his introduction, David Lane of The American Renewal Project writes:
“As Christians, we take full responsibility for allowing secularism to destroy our culture, society, and government; we ask God for mercy and forgiveness for what we Christians have allowed to happen to our nation”
Initially, this appears to be a commendable - even biblical - sentiment. One thinks of Daniel and his prayer of confession and repentance in Daniel 9. Lane similarly continues:
“To be a part of the solution we as Christians must turn to God, renewing our minds and hearts meditating on Biblical wisdom”
To be sure, as Christians we must turn to God (this basically defines what a Christian is) and we must certainly be meditating on Biblical wisdom and renewing our minds (Romans 12:2). The concern lies in what is meant by saying we must do these things “to be a part of the solution.” What solution does Lane have in mind?
Lane makes clear what he considers this ultimate solution to be.
“to train men and women to impart righteousness to our nation and restore American governance to its God-given purpose. Our call as Christians is not to “take our nation back,” but to turn back to God and humbly serve our fellow citizens.”
It seems, therefore, that Lane understands the church’s (or at least the church in America’s) aim to be “restore American governance to its God-given purpose.”
It is this idea that I take issue with. While we must serve our fellow citizens and encourage them to turn back to God, our aim is not to restore Government “to its God-given purpose.”
Someone might respond and say “why not? surely God desires all to come to repentance and knowledge of the truth and surely this includes, perhaps especially includes, those in authority?” In response: as far as this sentiment goes it is good - but this is not all that Lane is saying. He says that Christians should “take full responsibility” and “ask God for mercy and forgiveness for what we Christians have allowed to happen to our nation.” In other words, the Church has failed in its purpose if the nation does not govern in the fear of the Lord.
Here, then, is the key question - what does ‘success’ look like for the church? Lane’s words more than suggest that success for the church is restoration of Christendom - in the sense of a Christian society. I would argue instead that the true responsibility of Church is her own faithfulness to God. This obviously has political implications (who and what we vote for, what causes we promote and support etc. and which laws we submit to and which we resist etc.) but its focus is not on the political but morality.
A few scriptural examples will help illustrate the point.
Daniel was a believer in Babylon. The Babylonian Empire was, in many ways, an evil empire. Scripture itself chronicles many of her sins. It is noteworthy, however, that at no point does Daniel blame the people of God for the sins of Babylon. Instead, Daniel confesses the sins of God’s people. God certainly commanded that His people seek the good of the nation (Jeremiah 29:7), and it is likely that Babylon benefited from the prayers and righteousness of God’s people, but the state of Babylon was not Israel’s responsibility. This can be shown by looking at some New Testament examples.
John the Baptist was a preacher of righteousness. His preaching even reached into the political realm (because morality unavoidably reaches into politics). John rebuked Herod for marrying his brother’s wife and John was thrown into prison and, eventually, was beheaded. John was successfully faithful even while he was politically unsuccessful..
Joseph of Arimathea was a political figure - he was a member of the Jewish council (Mark 15:43). He, in fact, served on the council that oversaw the most heinous act of moral and political injustice this world has ever seen - the sham trial and crucifixion of the Son of God. We are told, however, in Luke 23:51 that Joseph did not consent to the decision or action. Politically Joseph failed - Jesus was crucified. Morally, however, Joseph succeeded.
Joseph can be helpfully contrasted with Peter. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter drew his sword to prevent Christ’s arrest and sliced off the ear of the High Priest’s servant. Christ, however, rebuked him for this action with the words “Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.” Peter’s political sentiments were understandable - but they were morally flawed. Christ meaning is made clearer in his later words to Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. The Church’s success or failure is not determined by the state of our society or our culture. It is determined by our faithfulness - whether it leads to persecution or revival.
This would explain why the apostles seemed to have little interest in reforming the Roman Empire. Their focus, instead, was on preserving and promoting the holiness and purity of the people of God in whatever nation they lived.
All this is not to dismiss entirely the work of The American Renewal Project - or any Christian organisation with a strong political emphasis. Much good can be done insofar as the aim is to encourage Christians to call people to repentance and turn again to God themselves. The danger lies in thinking that success depends on the results rather than on the simple obedience of the Great Commission. We share God’s Word in word and deed - and then we leave the results to God.