Before getting into the appropriate Christian response to the tyrannies of the arbitrary administrative state, we have to set aside a particular objection that can be marshaled from the Bible. Not only can it be marshaled, let us acknowledge that it frequently is.
When I say that Christians should stand for liberty, and I do, and I say that they should work and pray for it, and that preachers should preach with this in mind, the objection comes back that this is not what Jesus did, and this is not what the apostles did.
What I want to do here is highlight what this objection is actually doing, which is ignoring the cumulative flow of history. It is treating the strategies employed by God, Jesus, and the apostles as a fixed constant, when it is their faith and demeanor that is actually the fixed constant. If we lock down on the strategies, we will refuse to alter anything based on where we are in history. But this is like insisting on punting because St. Paul was fourth and long. Yes, I might reply, but we are third and inches.
I don’t really care that the early church punted a lot.
So it is quite true, and perfectly obvious, that Paul never organized a political party, never wrote a letter to the editor decrying the Stamp Act, never picketed a slave market in Charleston, never opened a crisis pregnancy center, and so on. But the fact that he never did such things does not mean that we shouldn’t. Neither does it preclude our obedience to his teaching requiring us to do things he never did.
The constant things, the permanent things, of course do not change. Faith, hope and love remain. Learning humility felt very much the same in the first century as it does in the 21st. Forgiving an enemy does not change. Repenting of sin, and trusting in Christ results in the same cleansing as it ever did.
But the Christian church, same as everybody else, has to play the ball as it lays. What would you do if you were the third Christian ever to enter the city of Rome, and the two others had come with you? You have been there ten minutes. As you enter the city, you see crowds flowing to the Coliseum in order to watch some hapless slaves fed to ravenous beasts for entertainment purposes only. What is your responsibility? Punch out one of the ticket takers?
No, you follow the example of Paul. You pray. You plant churches. You disciple converts. You teach the way of Jesus. You subvert the dominant paradigm. The first wave of our assault on paganism is a true assault, but it is the assault of the sappers. We tunnel under the city of man, and place there the explosive worship of the triune God of Scripture. We are not compromising simply because our military engineers are not the first ones to attempt scaling the walls.
But suppose our evangelism successful. Now there are not three of us in Rome, but rather 200,000 of us. We are well-organized and coordinated. We worship together weekly. Our people have stopped attending the bloody spectacles. Nevertheless, there are still enough pagans to fill the stadium, and still enough slaves to provide them with the requisite entertainment.
Is it an argument that 200,000 should not do anything about the slaughter because three could not possibly do anything?
Of course not. The apostle Paul taught the Corinthians that they were supposed to conduct themselves within the polis of the church in such a way that revealed that they knew that one day they were going to have greater responsibilities. “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?” (1 Cor. 6:3). And when we have received greater responsibilities — as we most certainly have — we must discharge them. Millions of evangelical Christian Americans cannot pretend that there are “just three of us.”
The early church, the great martyrs, are part of the Christian story, a glorious part. We stand to honor the martyrs. But I also stand to honor the veterans of the battle of Lepanto.
The establishment of Christendom involved more than just the first wave.
The Gospel wasn’t confined within the churches as the public sector demands today- it was spread among the general populace by Christians interacting with others in public forums. One must remember that the Gospel must and always begins with a confrontation of sin in a person and the fact that the person is under God’s wrath and judgment. This probably didn’t sit too well with the Roman government, especially when the Jews were so willing to sic the Romans on the Christians (refer to several incidents depicting this in the book of Acts). So whether they intended to or not,… Read more »
Pastor,
thank you.
t
Amen.
“It is treating the strategies employed by God, Jesus, and the apostles as a fixed constant, when it is their faith and demeanor that is actually the fixed constant.” I sort of agree with this. And I certainly do agree that Paul’s words and communities were already a confrontation with the Roman government, and that confrontation should have and did grow as the communities grew. The difference I see arising, though, is that I believe that rejection of violence and domination over others was part of the faith and demeanor of Jesus and the apostles. While others might consider those… Read more »
How exactly does cleansing the temple of moneychangers with a whip square with ‘rejection of violence’?
Violence is an intrinsic part of life in a fallen world. The question is not whether, but how and why.
This and the last post on the topic would seem to indicate some theory of progressive revelation of political science. If not progressive revelation, perhaps just Progressive? I would think that viewing scripture and history through the lense of postmillenialism may have something to do it.
Allen: I’m glad you mention violence. No political power is gained or held without violence and if someone is going to discuss the role of the Christian in political science I don’t think you can do it without first discussing to what extent and under what circumstances a Christian may use violence. By this I mean the violence of revolution or regicide but also the violence implicit in any vote since that vote is ultimately enforced by men with guns. We need to deal with the fact that apostles were distinctly non-violent. If one were to make that the standard… Read more »
Barnabas, Paul in Romans 13 approves implicitly of state violence. He felt free to use it himself to save his life from the Jews. But the larger question of Christians participating in such violence has had various answers over the ages since Paul. Still, in general, the church has followed the outline of Wilson’s thesis: when numbers are small, worship and promote belief in the gospel in small circles; as the gospel is successful, move into areas of public responsibility; when believers reach a plurality or majority, shape the laws according to Scripture. A little like Communism, it looks way… Read more »
It wasn’t as though Jesus and the Apostles made references to your preferred political theory but then said keep it on the DL so as to wait for a more opportune time. Instead, they seemed completely unconcerned with it, and the few direct statements they did make were along the lines of “Obey the authorities and shut up about it.” Pay your taxes, respect the laws…this is the NT’s political theory.
Pastor Wilson,
This is a pretty solid “Protestant” or “Reformed” defense of the civic realm and Christians’ right to labor within it. It would also extend itself to encouraging political activity and reformation from within the standing order rather than the “opting out” or trying to start some new alternative order civil realm. In other words, it means not only “don’t punt” on yourself, but “don’t punt” on the rule of law we have in the civil arena.
“Unless the Lord builds the house,
the builders labor in vain.
Unless the Lord watches over the city,
the guards stand watch in vain.
In vain you rise early
and stay up late,
toiling for food to eat—
for he grants sleep to[d] those he loves.” – Psalm 127:1-2
Seems appropriate. When Christians are repentant of their own sins, God blesses their nation. I think the problem in the USA is that the church has become worldly. When that happens, they open the door for all kinds of sin to rise to the top.
Pastor, Is there an intersection in this article with the R2k vs. Theonomy debate? Do you “choose sides” in this ongoing struggle? Perhaps you already have, and I’m not aware of those articles. Truly, it is one thing for the members of the local body to disciple their neighbors, to write letters to the editor that advance a Christian discourse of ongoing events, to refuse to deny Christ, and to live a very different lifestyle than the pagans around them. In other words to be light and salt as the local body. It is perhaps another thing to begin to… Read more »
BTW, I’m all in favor of the local elder being elected Sheriff and all the other examples. I’m not looking for clarification for myself. I already have an opinion.
One of your best ever, Douglas, which is saying quite a lot!
“Millions of evangelical Christian Americans cannot pretend that there are ‘just three of us’ . . . The establishment of Christendom involved more than just the first wave.”
If the first strategy worked, and was continued to work, why change strategies? The first strategy had the flavor of the Gospel, in that it was entirely unexpected. It subverted power by using weakness. Strategies that are more politically savvy, or based on the ability to coerce with sheer numbers and power, do not have the same flavor, and do not reveal the Gospel in the same way.
A reason to change strategies is because that’s often the correct response to growth. If milk is an excellent first food for infants, why teach them to eat meat?
(Or to use another analogy I heard some place or other… punting at fourth and long is good strategy, and punting at third and inches is not.)
“Still, in general, the church has followed the outline of Wilson’s thesis: when numbers are small, worship and promote belief in the gospel in small circles; as the gospel is successful, move into areas of public responsibility; when believers reach a plurality or majority, shape the laws according to Scripture.” That sounds very reasonable though certainly once the project of accruing political power begins there will be very strong temptations to compromise principles which might otherwise hamstring you. I’m still not completely comfortable with this concept of civil “liberty” (which always seems to me almost purposefully mixed up with the… Read more »
The thought experiment of a Church of 200K in pagan Rome caught my attention, and I find myself wondering if the Apostles ever addressed a Church of thousands and how it is to function civilly or politically. There is certainly teaching about how we are to act among outsiders, but I wonder if we are indeed left to pure speculation of what happens politically when a Church becomes the majority… Then on second thought, in the case of pagan Rome, all a church of 3 had to do was pray for the emperor in order to bring an end to… Read more »
and appeal to civil authorities similar to how St. Augustine would in his letters.
But if 3 could “reproduce” into 200,000 in such a realatively short time, imagine what 200,000 “evangelists” could do. Wouldn’t that accomplish more than picketing and politicking? 1 Corinthians 6:3 is talking about judging within the church instead of believer going against believer in open court in front of unbelievers (see 1 Corinthians 5:9-13). Better yet – be wronged rather than duke it out before the unbelieving public (something we still have not mastered because in part we value our rights over unbesmurching the Name of God). Comparatively, there hasn’t been much to cheer about since the first wave. Perhaps… Read more »
Barnabas, Sin is never inevitable for believers – but so common we see it as inevitable. The historical problem with Christian government is always succession: how the firm beliefs that shape the first generation are passed down to subsequent generations. We see this in microcosm in the universities that once were Christian, as well as several parachurch ministries that have moved their tent outside of Christianity. We can see it in one lifetime in Cromwell. And we see it writ large and repeatedly in the history of Israel. When there is a faithful core of believers working together toward a… Read more »
Allen says: “How exactly does cleansing the temple of moneychangers with a whip square with ‘rejection of violence’?” Because I don’t consider driving animals out with a whip to be the kind of violence I am talking about? Only John’s account of the clearing of the temple even mentions a whip, and this is what it says: “The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out… Read more »
I should also point out that along with Matthew, Mark, and Luke not mentioning the whip, none of the false witnesses at the trial mention the whip either, even though they are very focused on the temple incident. Nor do the Roman soldiers stationed right there at the temple respond at all. You’d think that if someone was committing violence right in the middle of the holy temple, it might get a prominent mention at the trial of that person. I have a really hard time buying the idea that Jesus was violently whipping people in the midst of the… Read more »
Mark – Context is important. Paul approved of us accepting the results of state violence as it can be directed by God, but he is certainly not affirming our participation in state violence at all. Romans 13:1-5 is pulled right out of the middle of a passage that extends from 12:1 through 13:10. That passage also includes: “Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” – Romans 12:12-14 “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful… Read more »
Allen – the whole problem with using Pastor Wilson’s “punting” analogy in this case is that it assumes you’ve been failing. What Justin, Pete, and others are pointing out is that that’s simply not true – we were gaining yards by the bucketfull when Pastor Wilson claims that we were punting. As Mark points out in a post that I otherwise disagree with, the church has had incredible effects even when a tiny minority. Yet it has more often than not been defined by shameful things when if gained the majority…and changed its tactics by gaining power rather than working… Read more »
I’m more than a little disappointed that no one engaged with my argument that the early church was in no way in a “fourth and long” situation.
I’m more than a little disappointed that no one engaged with my argument that the early church was in no way in a “fourth and long” situation. I think Pastor Wilson crafts a better argument then you do. It is much easier–speaking as a reader–to see and grasp his points and follow his argument and engage his arguments than it is to read , see, grasp, follow and engage yours. Regarding this specific topic–you are rejecting Pastor Wilson’s assertion that “strategies change” and arguing the best strategy (only,perhaps) was that of the book of Acts in Rome and to deviate… Read more »
I think Pastor Wilson crafts a better argument then you do. It is much easier–speaking as a reader–to see and grasp his points and follow his argument and engage his arguments than it is to read , see, grasp, follow and engage yours. I certainly agree that Pastor Wilson is a better writer and crafts better rhetoric than me. That does not make any of the arguments more correct though. Regarding this specific topic–you are rejecting Pastor Wilson’s assertion that “strategies change” and arguing the best strategy (only,perhaps) was that of the book of Acts in Rome and to deviate… Read more »
Hi Johnathan, I am afraid you are convinced that you are far more intelligent, persuasive and logically coherent than you are. Your have misread Pastor Wilson’s thesis and have imputed to it a meaning that is not there. You frequently resort to the genetic fallacy when replying to arguments (“I hope you are not relying on the Daily Mail for your information..”. You frequently disqualify other thinkers based on your pedigree (“I have a B.S. in ….”) You introduce topics that you use to disqualify the thinking of those who disagree with you (“…white privilege…”) You ignore inconsistencies in your… Read more »
@Johnathan, I assume your goal is to teach. There are plenty of “teachers” out there who are very smart in their subject and fail to teach their students. In college, I called them “See how stupid you are teachers”. Their teaching technique was to demonstrate their fluency before the class, look down with pity on the students sitting there without a clue at what was just said and to point out to the students how stupid they where. (helpfully, I am sure, in their view) I never found that to be an effective teaching strategy The way to teach is… Read more »
Timothy, all communication is a two-way road. I have responsibility for the fact that you continue to misunderstand (and, as a result, here misrepresent) many things that I said. In fact, I have more than the minimal responsibility, because there are things that I could have avoiding saying in order to focus on the most important points, rather than creating confusion by nitpicking at times. However, the grand statements you make about me are quite wrong. Of course, there’s nothing I can say on that note that will convince you. So I will simply try to do better, and see… Read more »
p.s. – on that note, the fact that you continue to spell my name wrong every single time may alert you to a lack of care with which you are reading my posts. I’ve considered that you might have some alternate motivation for doing that, but it’s kinda odd.
@Jonathan Franzone
My apologies.
Hi Jonathan. Timothy, all communication is a two-way road. Agreed. However, the grand statements you make about me are quite wrong. Perhaps, I do not know how you think, yet. I look for first principles. Hannibal Lector put it well–“First principles Clarice, remember your Marus Aurelius, of each thing ask yourself what is its nature…”. As I wrote in my previous comment, it is important to understand what your student is thinking before you can bring them from point A to point B. That is a difficult thing for a teacher to learn about his student. I have not figured… Read more »