I was asked a question regarding Daniel serving in
government. Clearly Daniel was willing to serve (as a slave) in the governments
of Babylon and Persia and yet stood his ground regarding overt idolatry. If he
refused to worship idols, why didn't he refuse to work for the Beast power? If (as
I argue) working for the state was and is truly the wrong thing for a believer
to do, why didn't Daniel refuse service altogether just as he and his friends
refused to bow down to the king?
And obviously by implication the question suggests that my Christians should not participate in
government argument may be flawed.
These questions regarding Daniel are valid. It seems to me
that Daniel understood the situation as being ordained of God and that the
exile and subjugation to Babylon (and then Persia) were part of God's covenant
judgment on Israel. Ultimately we know through Isaiah that the stage was being
set for the rise of Cyrus who would (messianically) restore the people to the
land. And yet at the same time Cyrus was a Beast as is made clear by both
Daniel's visions and John's Beast composite in the Apocalypse.
On the one hand it could thus be argued that Daniel's example
would afford an analogous opportunity for Christians to also serve Beast powers
in that they too (as Paul says) are ordained of God. And yet like Daniel,
faithful Christians will have to stand their ground which will likely lead to
persecution. As long as a believer understood that, wouldn't it be permissible?
But that's not what Paul says. His arguments in Romans 12, 1
Corinthians 5ff. and even 1 Timothy 2 (and elsewhere) assume that we as
Christians are on the outside, of a different order and therefore we are not to
directly participate in the 'ministry' of the sword as it were.
So this might be a case of the New Testament calling us to a
higher ethic. I realise that is problematic for some whether due to their
understanding of Covenant unity or conversely due to some variety of Law-Gospel
hermeneutic.
Also there's no basis in the New Testament for a Christian to
seek such power, to voluntarily pursue such offices. In fact I think it's just
the opposite. Daniel and Joseph were compelled to serve and Providence informs
us (via hindsight) of some of the reasons connected to their placement. It
would be presumptuous to take that role to one's self and appeal to Providence.
It might be considered a case of tempting God. And even in the Old Testament
context, faithful Jews didn't go and seek office in Assyria, Babylon or Egypt.
Leaving aside the blatant errors of Dominionism and its
wayward impulses, isn't it possible a Christian could seek office within the
sphere of Common Grace? Perhaps he simply wants to help society function
better, stave off corruption and the like. This argument certainly has greater
viability than the imperatives of Dominionism and its faulty worldview
reasoning and theories regarding vocation.
But ultimately I fail to understand how we could be called to
come out of the world, to love not the world and its ways, to seek the Kingdom
of Heaven and to turn the other cheek when at the same time we are part of a
system which represents violence. I realise its God ordained but its mandate is
not the mandate of the Church. I think Paul is making this very point in Romans
12-13. To form an alliance with such an entity as the state is to be unequally
yoked and to possess divided allegiances. Apart from the specific New Testament
passages that assume Christian non-participation in the state, and those that
by inference seem to demand separation, the entire ethos of the Gospels and
Epistles seem to militate (no pun intended) against it.
But some will argue this just doesn't seem to match up with
Daniel's conduct. Perhaps Daniel was nothing more than a bureaucrat par
excellence. Maybe he had nothing to do with policing or military functions. Could
a Christian do that? There are certainly government jobs that have nothing to
do with law enforcement and military violence, right?
I find it hard to parse the functioning of government in such
a way. It tends to work holistically and even the bureaucracy would have no
teeth if it were not backed up by a very real threat of violence, i.e. the
courts and the police. Likewise as I've talked about in the past, when I was in
the Air Force I did not actually drop the bombs but I handled them. I unloaded
them from incoming cargo aircraft and passed them to the munitions guys who
attached them to the fighters and bombers. I was very conscious of my part in
the war machine as I watched the jets take off loaded and return empty. The
bombs I had handled maybe just hours before had been dropped and had killed
people. Some would say I had no culpability. However I was acutely aware of it.
I was part of the death machine. Sure, a greater burden of responsibility
rested on those who gave the orders, who set the policy and made the plans.
They wield the sword but I was only an inch or so from its tip. It made me sick
and I wanted nothing to do with it.
What about a child protective services worker? A process
server? A clerk in the courthouse? A game warden? A building code enforcer? A
secretary at city hall? A public school teacher?
Personally I would want nothing to do with any of these jobs.
I see them as connected to the state machine and its violence. In some cases
they fulfill a middle-man role. In other instances they must necessarily
promote a state ideology. Are they necessary jobs for society? Maybe, maybe
not. Regardless it's Caesar's domain. Let his servants fill the slots.
I know the many arguments against this, about handing it all
over to the pagans. These arguments seem to exhibit a certain degree of wisdom
but ultimately they collapse when considered in light of reality not to mention
an examination of Scripture. Even the oft cited salt and light passage from the
Sermon on the Mount is (upon closer examination) found to teach something quite
different than the common 'preservative' explanation.
I fully realise that some might say my fusion of bureaucrat
and sword-bearing soldier is deductive and not supported by any doctrinal text
and I will grant there is no proof-text that frames it that way. But again I
appeal to the aforementioned New Testament passages as well as the general
ethos found in the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles. In the end the state is
the sword and I don't think it's too hard to argue that we're not to take up
the sword or seek justice from it. Why would we want to partner with it and
profit from it?
The problem (to me) seems to be that Paul's teaching doesn't
quite match up with Daniel's ethic. And so how to understand this? Again, I
look to Daniel's context as well as distinct differences between the Old and
New Testaments. The Beast powers are still with us but generally speaking the posture
of the Covenant people vis-à-vis the state seems to have changed.
With regard to Daniel, it could be argued that the Old
Testament in general had a different posture when it came to questions of the
state. Under that order the state could be made holy, sacral and Theocratic.
While Babylon and Persia were certainly not of that order, the context of the
Old Covenant was such that post-Moses, the Covenant people, the Covenant nation
couldn't function apart from a state entity or perhaps we could say, sponsor.
It was not possible to return to the Patriarchal pre-Law epoch, though the
exile almost forced them to do so. Full compliance with the law was no longer
possible even on a theoretical level.
What I'm trying to suggest is that the state carried an additional
function or role in the Old Covenant order that it no longer possesses today.
The Beast powers that kept the Covenant people in exile were also indirectly
providing a shield of protection for the nation so that it could be coherently restored...
which was required for the Covenant to remain in effect and for prophecies that
had yet to be fulfilled. And the restoration under Nehemiah, Zerubbabel and the
like could have been more glorious but for large-scale defections. The Jews who
did not return were to some degree apostates and some overtly so. And yet again
it was all part of God's providence to be sure. The Jewish Diaspora played its
part in the formation of the Church and the failure of the exilic restoration
was but another example of shadowy type (and failed type at that) pointing to
its ultimate fulfillment in the New Covenant.
But that doesn't let the exile-embracing Jews off the hook.
They were still in sin to remain.
To conclude I am broadly suggesting that the entire context
of Daniel and the exile finds no parallel in the New Testament. The Church is
most certainly a nation (and even an exiled one in a sense) but unlike the Old
Testament the New Covenant Israel is international and transcendent and can
never find allegiance with or identify with a political body. Daniel could
labour under Babylon and Persia understanding (perhaps) that they would play a
part in national preservation and restoration. That scenario does not exist
today. The Beast powers are still valid agents of Providence but I see no basis
for believing that we're called to participate in their order.
For me the only real question is with regard to those who are
converted while holding office. What then? Well, I guess I experienced that to
some degree. I was converted in concert with my enlistment in the military.
Within a matter of months I realised I wanted out and did not want to wear the
uniform. I seriously thought about going AWOL and even today there are times I
wish I had done so. But what did I do? Well, I took on the bureaucracy which
was no small task and Providentially it was the 1990's and a time of downsizing
and so I was able to be released somewhat early but not immediately by any
means. I finished out my time and yet there were many conflicts and I was
threatened with jail at least once. But God preserved me and I was able to
divorce myself from that institution and I have never looked back.
I guess those who find themselves holding office and yet
coming under conviction that they shouldn't be there will have to make the best
of it and ultimately every situation will be different. Life is messy. I think
they should try to remove themselves from that situation as soon as possible
and I certainly don't think that believers should seek such offices and
occupations. The military more than other branches of government is akin to a
type of slavery. You cannot simply quit and thus it represents a blatant
example that falls under Paul's imperative in 1 Corinthians 7... do not become
slaves of men.