This is the last article in a series about the biblical view of government and how Christians should relate to it. For more, follow the RELATED tags within the article.
Shifts in Christian Political Involvement in America
In the previous century Christian politics in America went through two major transformations. The first was from a broadly politically progressive faith to a somewhat politically detached one due to the rise of secularism typified in the events of the Scopes monkey trial. The next transformation, from politically uninvolved to politically conservative, originally coalesced around the purported right (under the banner of religious freedom) of Christian colleges like Bob Jones University to discriminate against students of color while receiving federal funds. This right-wing Christianity was finally consolidated by bringing evangelicals over to the pro-life movement (a movement from which we had been conspicuously absent when the decision of Roe v Wade came down in 1973) and was further fortified over issues such as prayer in school, gays in the military, and gay marriage.
RELATED: A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW OF GOVERNMENT PART 1 – THE ORIGIN AND ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
RELATED: A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW OF GOVERNMENT PART 2 – LEFT VERSUS RIGHT
Such rapid shifts on public policy might suggest that scripture doesn’t give us anything to stand on when it comes to how we ought to view the state and relate to it. However, there are some railings we can place around the issue of political involvement to help us to navigate this rough terrain more biblically.
Christians and State Violence
To begin with, the New Testament is fairly explicit that, even though God may use the violence of the state for good ends, Christians cannot participate in that violence. Though the apostle Paul is clear that Christians may not “repay anyone evil for evil,” or “take revenge . . . but leave room for God’s wrath” (Romans 12:17-19, NIV), he is also clear that the magistrates (which, in Paul’s time, were uniformly pagan polytheists) are “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4, NIV).
Jesus also excludes Christians from performing the violent activities of the state when He explains to Pilate why, though He is a king, His servants won’t fight to release Him from the death penalty imposed upon Him by the state oppressors:
“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 18:36, NIV).
Indeed, Christians are to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) and remember that:
“Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’ When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:21-23, NIV).
RELATED: PODCAST: MAKE CHRISTIANITY WEAK AGAIN
The reason for this non-violence on the part of Christians is simple:
“our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12, ESV). The chief influence of Christians upon society ought to be to transform hearts and minds, not to coerce bodies. Our goal should not be to make America great again, but to make Christianity weak again—at least when it comes to our ability to coerce others through physical force. Indeed, we are to be weak as Christ was “weak” in the face of political violence and power. In fact, Paul is even clear that it is not our job to judge those outside of the church, but that we must leave that work to God (1 Corinthians 5:12).
Can a Christian Be Involved in Politics?
If the state’s tool is destructive violence, and Christians are forbidden its exercise, how then should the two relate? A traditional Anabaptist answer to this question is to forbid Christians from participation in the state in any capacity, though the New Testament isn’t as explicit on this point as we would like it to be—its human authors did not seem to foresee a time when Christians would have the opportunity to participate in any meaningful way in statecraft. But if we are to venture out into the world of politics, we must remember the lessons listed above which scripture seeks to teach us:
1. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of men are distinct.
2. The kingdom of God is not, at this stage, physical, so it does not use violence but spiritual power.
RELATED: HOW SHALL WE THEN VOTE?
If then, we are to participate in the state, we must do so as those who cannot ultimately give ourselves only to secular realities. What then should we encourage the state to do from our unique vantage points as Christians?
The apostles Peter and Paul give us some direction for the kind of state that we as Christians should prefer. For one, we should prefer a state which benefits those doing good and is a terror to those doing evil (Romans 13,1 Pet 2:14), not the reverse. In other words, we should prefer a state where justice is done and the corrupt are not rewarded. In addition, we ought to prefer a state which gives us the freedom to preach the gospel and live out our lives unmolested (1 Timothy 2:1-3). We also ought to be willing to use our influence to rally for the cause of peace, knowing that this is at the heart of God and that war destroys precious instances of the image of God. Let us seek to apply the theological insights of the 2nd century church father Justin Martyr, who wrote in his First Apology that God’s promise that future nations would beat their swords into ploughshares had been fulfilled in the church, whose members, “formerly used to murder one another [though] do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.”
This command to peace must be followed by the disciples of Christ, but we should also use our influence for the cause of peace in this age. This is to say that we should seek to make the secular world look a little bit like the kingdom of God through our example of peacemaking.
This seems to point us in the direction of libertarianism—looking to focus the state upon the essential tasks of protecting the safety of its people, deterring those who would seek to harm others, and allowing the free and open preaching and living out of the gospel of Christ. It should be stated with firmness that this requires cultivating an environment where the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly can flourish for everyone, lest we give the state the power to regulate our own freedom of worship after we have sought to use its violence to regulate that of others. This is important not only for our freedom as Christians, but also for the purpose of our evangelism—we cannot preach a gospel of love to a people whom we have sought to subject politically. We cannot tell people about the freedom of Christ after we have done the Christian equivalent of forcing them to pay the jizya.
Going back to the issue of gay marriage which was discussed earlier in regard to left and right wing dichotomies, something of a biblical answer to this issues begins to emerge. If we do not desire a state which has the power to regulate our marriages or censure those who hold what society sees as the wrong view of marriage, we should seek a state which does not side with either a right wing evangelical or a gay activist solution to the issue, but one which allows non-celibate gay people and Christians to co-exist peacefully.
To summarize, an ideal society for Christians to live in will be broadly libertarian for at least five reasons:
1. Christians can live without fear of oppression.
2. The gospel can be shared openly.
3. The faith cannot be as easily compromised by political power nor can one powerful group of Christians enforce a false orthodoxy on others.
4. Evangelism will not be thwarted by our attempts to subjugate others.
5. The Christian goal of peacemaking can be more easily realized in a society which has as its default position a desire to avoid war.
RELATED: PODCAST: CANTUS FIRMUS AT THE MOVIES EP. 4 – THE MISSION (W/ KEITH GILES)
In this sense, the classical liberal theory of the rights of man is somewhat confirmed by a rational application of the principles of scripture. However, a Christian should not see humanity through the Enlightenment lens of humans having natural rights which give us the power to do whatever we choose to whomever we want–a right which we give up by participation in a “social contract.”
A Christian should instead see human rights through the lens of scripture which tells us that all human beings are made in the image of God and that the value of each and every human must be respected by all—even non-Christian kings. Our rights are not based on our animal nature, but upon the divine image represented in our humanity. Building on that foundation, we should also note that the Hebrew mind didn’t think in terms of individual rights, but of relational obligations. A Christian should want to think in libertarian terms not because of an Enlightenment philosophy of rights, but because Christ has commanded us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This distinction between Christianity and Enlightenment era liberalism is an important one because it allows us to discern whether, if liberty cannot make a way to providing an essential service to those in need, the state may be called upon to do so lest our brothers and sisters in humanity perish.
Conclusion
The lens through which the Christian ought to view the world should be Christ—particularly His chosen weakness in order that He might love and serve others (Phillipans 2:6-9). This requires that we give up our desires to subjugate other human beings and to treat the political arena as a battleground by which we wage crusades using the pagan tools of kings and soldiers. Indeed, we should go out of our way to love others and ensure their peace and liberty. If we are to call everyone to the marriage supper of the lamb, we must make room at the earthly table where we presently dine and stop stockpiling all of the food for ourselves.