As strangers, pilgrims and
exiles we view the state as something that is wholly other or outside the
Kingdom realm to which we belong.
We understand why the state was
instituted and to some degree we are thankful that it exists. And yet we also
are painfully aware of both its limitations and dangers.
This of course is the story of
Church history. The struggle to maintain the truth on this point is a long dark
chapter with many lives lost and many apostasies, but also a testimony to the
glorious truth of the Kingdom's spirituality. It is a tale of slaughtered sheep
who are more than conquerors.
We are not to behave as the
Gentiles do. We do not seek to be esteemed, rightly understanding the world's accolades
are an abomination to God. We seek neither power nor its cousins wealth and
fame. For the security the world offers is a false one, and all the world's
enticements are but dung to the believer and can never for a moment be equated
with the riches that we possess in Christ. If that doesn't stir our hearts then
we need to repent, go back and reconsider these matters in greater depth.
The New Testament which is the
norm for the Church provides the right interpretation of the Old Testament and teaches
us that in this Age of the Kingdom, this Age of the Consummation, we are to live
as exiles. We are to lead quiet lives, working with our hands and minding our
own business. Our relationship to the rulers is one of respect but permanent
separation. We pray for the peace of the city but ultimately that they would
simply leave us alone.
This doesn't mean they are
wholly evil and that we are to avoid all contact. That's not possible nor is it
necessary. Even in the Old Testament the believers would at times accept
temporal help from pagan rulers. This is especially true in the Pre-Mosaic
period which according to both Christ and Paul is in many ways analogous to our
own era.
The rulers can't help us in
terms of our spiritual project but they can help when it comes to meeting basic
needs. We're not helping them in their project and they aren't helping us in
ours. But for the sake of the common peace we can usually coexist. We won't
ever be the true believing citizenry they desire but most regimes won't
complain about a people who don't agitate, who obey the laws, work and raise
their children to do the same. This testimony on many occasions led to the
Waldensians being shown mercy by local rulers. Sure they weren't properly
orthodox as far as the Papacy was concerned, but from the standpoint of a secular
baron, they were good enough people and hardly worthy of persecution.
Romans 13 teaches us that God
ordains the powers that be and that we are not to resist his providential
arrangements. The state is his providential servant and this can be true of
Assyria, Persia, Rome or America. This doesn't mean in any way that God
sanctions what they do or their motives for doing it. The state doesn't build
the Kingdom. The state is simply a merciful stop-gap that prevents the chaos of
sin from overtaking the world. This doesn't mean the state is good or wholly
evil.
We are to obey, but all
obedience except to God Himself carries some qualification. There are times we
are to disobey the state and must do so. But disobedience does not mean
political revolt or violence. That is exactly what we're being contrasted with
at the end of Romans 12. We behave the one way, trusting in God for vengeance
and ultimate vindication. The state serves God's purposes but is not a holy
institution. Contrary to the Church, its foundation is the threat of violence.
Whether that's based on democratic principles, a constitution, the claims of a
nobility or even military dictators, they all rule based on violence. That is
the state.
At this point we must consider
the relatively modern phenomenon of the vote. How does this fit in?
Most Christians continue to
crave political power and view the vote as a means to that end. Others believe
it is how we 'render' unto Caesar, that which is his.
I don't think you can make any
argument from the Gospel text that Christ had 'citizen' duties like voting in
mind. If anything it referred to taxes and a certain level of respect. Caesar's
demands are limited. If Caesar conscripts us into doing something that is
against our belief system we must refuse. With regard to voting, I don't know
if I would go so far as to say its intrinsically sinful but it can hardly be
called a moral imperative solely on the basis that Caesar was instituted it.
Voting is voluntary in most
countries and therefore we can't argue that we 'must' vote because it's the
law. God certainly does not command it and in fact based on what I've already
discussed we could begin to make a substantial case against our participation
in the franchise.
Would the Jews of the
Babylonian exile have voted if they could? It's hypothetical of course but I
raise the question to drive us to consider the issue. It seems rather unlikely
even a somewhat absurd notion, but I suppose one's views determine the
perceived 'mindset' of the exiles. If it seems absurd then it should seem
equally so with regard to the Church.
I know there are many who would
cite Daniel and Joseph as examples of Christian statesmen but these are
inapplicable examples. Daniel was a slave and compelled into political service,
and we have virtually no account of his official record. With regard to Joseph I
also don't believe his case to be applicable. But if it were I think the
implications are more than a little troubling for the Christian America crowd.
Joseph it would seem embraced a thoroughgoing pragmatism with regard to his
office. He sought the peace of Egypt and ironically under Divine guidance
created a political and economic system more reminiscent of a form of communism
than anything Christians would wish for in our own day.
We must subject ourselves to the
decrees of Providence but the situations of Daniel and Joseph are a far cry
from actively seeking political power.
The United States itself is
founded on a series of sinful acts that we refer to as the American Revolution.
No Biblical case can be made that calls for or vindicates the actions of 1776. Those
that attempt this are resting on theological traditions and not sound exegesis.
That said, we cannot roll back history nor do we somehow desire to be subjects
of the British crown. The past is complete. All we can do is deal with the
fallout. That said, in light of our status as exiles, our mandate to refuse
power on all fronts and our always qualified command to be subject to the
ruling power, one must ask- Why would we as Christians bother with voting at
all?
We could argue that we're
seeking the peace of the city. A case could be made on this point but
interestingly once again if the Bible does indeed provide precedent it is a
posture of pragmatism that ought to guide our thinking. We're not looking for a
Christian state. Such a thing is categorically an impossibility. Are we looking
for a moral state? On a certain level yes, but our expectations must be pretty
low. The standards we look for cannot be covenantal. Really we're just looking
for a situation that allows for peace and for us to live our lives and preach
the Gospel.
Ultimately what type of
political order or even economic system which governs society shouldn't be of
great concern to us. Some governments are more evil than others. But if they're
all 'other' to us, then it doesn't make that much difference.
Of course if the idea of a
Christian state represents a theological error then that idea and those who
support it, would be something that we should absolutely oppose with no latitude
whatsoever. Our opposition wouldn't be expressed politically other than in
terms of rejection. We must absolutely 'not' vote for candidates which promote
this idea and if in power we must be vocal in our rejection of their false
gospel. At that point we're battling a false gospel and Christian heresy. The
political aspect is secondary. We would still pay the tax but actively denounce
them as Mystery Babylon. The so-called Christian Candidate is the very person
we must not vote for. They automatically represent a dangerous rejection of the
Gospel and will harm both society and the Church.
Many think of Eschatology in
terms of last times chronology. That's actually the least important aspect.
Eschatology defines how we view the Kingdom, what expectations we have and thus
how we are to live now. Of the three popular schools of thought, both Post- and
Pre-millennialism largely relegate the book of Revelation to either past or
future. One's eschatology usually determines which method is employed in the
reading of the book of Revelation. The Futurist and Preterist schools of
thought both agree that most of Revelation is not actually applicable for
today.*
The Idealist or sometimes the
Reiterationist school usually associated with Amillennialism acknowledges that
the book like what we find in Daniel, is a series of repeating visions from
different perspectives and with different emphases. Each vision encapsulates
the whole of the age from the First to Second Comings, ending with some kind of
manifestation of Christ or the Throne of Judgment.
This reading means that
Revelation 13 is fully applicable in our day. The economic ramifications of the
Beast system are not something solely related to a future technology, Roman citizenship
or even Roman Catholic Church membership. It's something much bigger and historically
universal. The Mark itself is simply the contrast of those who are marked by
God as we see in Ezekiel. The forehead and the hand represent the mind and our
activities. The implication in Revelation 13 is that you have to become 'the world'
and embrace the system in order to get along in this life.
This is an ongoing dynamic
fully applicable in Europe, Asia or America and at any period in history. The
symbolism indicates that Christians who refuse to conform will always be
relegated to second-class status, and due to their moral, ethical and thus
economic non-conformity will by default be placed at the brink of poverty. Those
who refuse to think and act like the Beast will be at the bottom of the social
order. They are disenfranchised in every way that term can be utilized. To what
extent this is felt both socially and economically and becomes a painful reality
depends on the particular context.
But it should be considered
normative. There's no room in Revelation 13 for the idea of a Christian state
in This Age. The only Christian Nation is Zion, the Kingdom of Heaven which can
only appear on the New Earth. We are the ambassadors and envoys but it's not here
except in the sense that we are.
But the door is indeed wide
open in Revelation 13 and indeed 17 for the idea of an apostate Christendom
persecuting Biblically faithful Christians and/or Christians being persecuted
in a pagan or secular state. This is the norm.
This reality doesn't make
Christianity very attractive to those who are on the outside, and it must be
wondered how many would continue to embrace the Christian faith if they
understood this to be the case? How many would embrace the Gospel knowing that
it meant a life of hardship, rejection, hate and alienation? And yet, that
message is plain to see across the pages of the New Testament. If they can't
understand that then they certainly won't understand the nature of our
sorrowful joy that we experience (2 Cor 6.10). Many have chosen to ignore this
message of glorious defeat and antithesis to the world, or wrongly understand
these many passages in terms of a political struggle.
"Yes, the opposition hates
us while we seek to rule over them and/or oppress them."
Though they'll insist that's
not what they are doing, the opposition will tell them otherwise. Either way
this is not at all what the New Testament is presenting to us. We aren't
Christians because we think godliness is gain but because we believe in the
Person and Work of Jesus Christ.
*I acknowledge there are some
Amillennialists who are Preteristic in their reading of Revelation. Usually these
Amil's are in reality Crypto-Postmillennial in their application of the system
to This Age. There's also the Historicist school which is presently making a
comeback. But it also believes that most of Revelation is not applicable. We
are apparently living somewhere along their understanding of the linear
chronology. The previous chapters are fulfilled and the rest are not yet
applicable. Of course no one can agree on any of the symbolic interpretations.
There's no way to verify them. Historicism is a deeply flawed system resting on
many false theological assumptions. Only the Idealistic Reiterationist
Amillennial reading of Revelation can say that the whole book applies to every
age of the Church.