Why The Church Must Reject Politics (Part I)
These are questions that I have addressed many times but I'll
address some specific points that have been raised and are worthy of
consideration given the present moment.
Romans 13 makes it abundantly clear that the powers that be
are ordained by God and to resist the power is to invite judgment and
condemnation.
By the example of the apostles we know there are times when
we must obey God and not man, when we must suffer for the name of Christ. When
the commandments of the magistrate cause us to sin then we must refuse to obey.
The key word here is 'refuse' – this is different than to resist. Refusal means
that we suffer the penalty and trust in God even if it means bearing the cross
or the spoiling of our goods.
We also have the prerogative to flee which requires vigilance
and discernment on our part as our only hope in this regard is to anticipate
the state's moving against us – a gauging of the unfolding of events in which
we act and escape their clutches to continue our struggle elsewhere. The costs
may not be as high as the cross (so to speak) but there are costs. Why would
this be an appealing option? For some with families flight is preferable than a
family being broken apart, parents being incarcerated or children becoming
wards of the pagan state. A family without a father will in most cases suffer
even more than a family forced to live as refugees.
Refusal or flight is our call. It's between us and God. To
resist, to march in the streets, to enlist lawyers, to lobby, to organise into
a party or activist bloc is to politically agitate. It is to become political
and cast the Kingdom fight in political terms – the struggle for this worldly
city or polis. It is to enter the
struggle for power – for mastery. Some convince themselves that they only seek
standing, basic rights and a place at the table and that may be their motive
for a time but as polarisation increases which it must inevitably do – this
path is quickly abandoned and the nature of political power is revealed for
what it really is – a zero sum game. No politician's goals are ever met until
they hold all the cards.
Systems of checks and balances can alleviate the tension and
delay the inevitable crisis – but polarisation is generated by the struggle
itself and then when the social consensus is broken it becomes a contest for
raw power. Polarisation in such cases starts to become very dangerous. If this
starts to sound familiar, it should. This is actually much bigger than mere politics
as the political order is intertwined with the economic structure and economics
itself overlaps with social ethics – and questions of everything from the
organisation of the family, to health care, education, and much more. This is
why once the Church enters in on this path it becomes all encompassing,
perilous, and a trap. The Scriptures warn of this, the love of money, the
service of mammon – these concepts are inseparable from politics. For the
political order mammon is both the means and the end and those who serve mammon
are necessarily drawn into the political sphere and struggle. It's a snare that
leads to destruction and perdition.
And as we see at present, because of the actions of certain
Christian leaders and the false doctrines they have promulgated, the Church is
right in the thick of this political struggle and has in fact largely lost its
identity – having become a political faction rather than a manifestation and
witness of an eschatological Kingdom. Generally speaking it has lost its
identity and has become functionally speaking apostate. Apart from a dwindling
but faithful remnant, it no longer serves Christ or His Kingdom.
The confusion is compounded by history and the history of
ideas. Democracy is problematic in light of Romans 13. Many misled men have
used the assumptions of Classical Liberalism as a means to countermand the
imperatives of Romans 13. They argue that in the American context the authority
(or power) is found in the will of the people or perhaps the Constitution –
neither of which are Biblical concepts. Romans 13 certainly does not teach a
social contract or consent of the governed. Writing under the auspices of
Nero's rule, no such notions would have ever entered Paul's mind. Are they
prepared to say Romans 13 is irrelevant or obsolete?
Regarding the Constitution, it is in no way a Biblical
document nor can it be as the doctrine of the New Testament and its ethics are
incompatible with a worldly political order. The order is necessary and
Providentially ordained to constrain (some) wickedness in this present evil age
but it's not absolute and the institution is in no way covenantal. It is not
Christian nor can it be. In fact in light of Romans 12 (remember the chapter
divisions are artificial), the Church and its ethics are specifically
contrasted with what the state is and represents. We don't hate the state or
resist it but we're not part of it and we don't collaborate with it or endorse
it.
Revolution and rebellion are sin. This can be stated without
exception. In the Providence of God nations rise and fall, the beast powers war
and devour each other. Let them, but we neither sanction nor participate in
their actions. We bear witness against all of them but not from a political
platform. We obey the laws, pay our taxes and seek to live quiet lives even
while going about our business - a war and struggle that the world neither sees
nor understands. We don't chase after their power or their gold. We are (or
ought to be) oddities, a strange and peculiar people zealous for good works,
not an element of the Establishment or the respectable middle class, but a second
class disenfranchised sect that is hated not for its politics or what it does
with money, nor for any accusation of dishonesty but because of the message it
preaches and for refusal to participate in mainstream life. We don't contribute
to their political or economic order and we're less than full participants in
their social system. Some of Babylon's rulers will nevertheless be content with
our presence. We're productive, quiet, honest in business, we pay our taxes and
we don't make trouble. But for the visionaries and true believers in the
state's sacral vision we are less than proper citizens – we are immoral for our
refusal to participate in their order. We fail to properly believe in it and
thus are unwilling to send our sons to their wars and so forth. We must always
be content with this posture toward us. It is our calling in this age. Rather
than resist and become angry and seek redress (or revenge) with the law, we are
called to bear this cross with joy and to pity and pray for the lost people
given over to idolatry.
There is a real problem with democracy (and even democratic
republicanism) in that it is not Christian. This has been confused by the false
teachers who have conflated and confused Enlightenment classical Liberalism
with Christianity and the legacy of the Protestant Reformation. Some have laughably attempted to read these
categories back into the Old Testament Theocracy and in doing so parade their
hermeneutical ignorance and their woeful inadequacy at grasping basic theology
or even the basic outlines and Christ-centered themes being developed in
Scripture. The Mosaic order was a true Theocracy, something commissioned by God
Himself, that cannot be repeated and is in no way related to the assumptions of
Enlightenment Classical Liberalism. Those who draw such analogies are simply
ignorant of both systems.
The Magisterial Reformation was not wholly bad but it did
unleash some evils and spawn no small cloud of confusion that both the West and
the Church are still reckoning with to this very day. The Reformers of the 16th
and 17th century would have had very little time for the notions of
Enlightenment Classical Liberalism – the notions now falsely associated by some
with their legacy and yet despite this they are in fact guilty of starting up
the momentum, unleashing the forces which would ultimately undo their order and
vision and create the modern world. There is a connection but it is indirect or
tangential. It is not a case of continuity or progressive development. This indirect
connection between the Magisterial Reformation and Liberalism was not meant as
a compliment nor should we celebrate it. But regardless of what one thinks of
it, it is the context in which we are called to live. We err in reading too
much into the Reformers and ascribing too much to their thoughts and intentions
but at the same time it is also a mistake to gloss over their errors and ignore
the social, cultural, and epistemic crisis their project (a Protestant
Christendom) unleashed.
On the one hand democracy is rebellion against God, a
wresting of power by the mob, a rooting of authority in the whims and desires
of men and their notions of justice and equity. We see this in both the
rebellions it spawns, the ideas that undergird such revolts and even in the
power and moral authority granted to the results of the vote.
It's also wicked in this aspect – by participating in the
system there is a consensus or understanding that you accept the results and yet
still sanction the system. This is why even though your candidate may have lost
you are to support the winner because you believe in the system. When the
winner starts a war or engages in policies that are sinful there is an
understanding of acceptance – at least to some degree. The process is done, the
decision is made and now to be a 'good citizen' (a notion foreign to the New
Testament) you're called upon to support the police, the troops, the courts or
whatever institution is enacting or enforcing those laws. But as Christians we
cannot do that. We can never set aside our ethics. We cannot compromise and for
this reason (among others) we cannot honestly participate in the political
order and maintain any form of integrity. We do not support the agents of the
state (or system) in their evil and we can only retain our integrity and moral
voice by refusing to participate. There are those at work in the Church (and
the larger Right) that understand this to some degree and yet pay lip service
to the system even while they connive to take power and more or less overthrow
the democratic order. They too are deceitful and have engaged in a widespread
campaign of exploitation – lying to their supporters even while they take their
money and stir them into political action. It's a case of embracing the end
justifying the means, an ethic no Christian can endorse.
For years I echoed the mantra that those who refuse to vote
have no right or standing to complain. In fact the opposite is true. Those who
vote endorse the system and have given up their right to express moral
resistance or to bear witness against the order as a whole. Voting is a form of
ethical compromise even abdication as one man put it. I have flirted with it on
and off, advocated protest voting and the like but I finally came to realise we
really have no business even participating. I would never want to look at a
political leader – one wielding the sword and say I helped that person come to
power or I empowered them and their policies. That's for God to do in His grand
purpose.
I have no business wading into those waters and if I do, I've
compromised my own standing in the process. I will not say it's sin to vote but
no Christian can support the major parties and too many have been hoodwinked by
their leaders into the false dilemma, the false binary that governs our corrupt
system that you have to vote for one of the major parties and that refusal to
vote or to vote for a third party is to effectively cast a vote for the
candidate you oppose. It's all a trick and an argument built on
consequentialist ethics. It's manipulative and unchristian. I say this because
I used to vote third party as a form of protest vote. I can honestly say I have
never been a member of or voted for candidates in the major parties. But at this
point I don't want to sanction the system. If our society wants it, they can
have it. Our system is evil. I live here but I'm not part of it.*
Those who engage in political resistance but hide behind
notions like 'the Constitution is the king' and therefore submit only to the constitution
(as they interpret it) even while they break laws, refuse to pay taxes and the
like are engaged in self deceit and sinful thinking. The Constitution is not
king but rather the legal platform for the establishment of authority. It has
to be executed, implemented and interpreted. It is not an absolute and without
men's hands to enact it – it is but empty paper. This argument which has become
very common in some circles is prima
facie false and frankly more than a little lame – a demonstration of
shallow even childish thinking as well as historical and legal ignorance. It's
also sinful as in many cases it has led to erroneous notions that 'taxation is
theft' and the like – ideas that are neither Scriptural nor constitutional for
that matter.
Democracy is in no way Christian and the 1776 Rebellion was
clearly a case of grievous sin – a direct violation of Romans 13. The
Christians that participated in those events were sinning and are to be condemned
as thieves and murderers – figures like Witherspoon perhaps most of all. That
wicked man is elevated today but he stands under Biblical judgment and is a shame
to the testimony of the Christian Church.
On the other hand we can point to events like 1776 or 1789
and say they are Providential - God's ordained power for the day. It does not
mean He sanctions, blesses or covenantalises these powers and new orders. They
are merely the new Babylons of the hour. They will rise and fall, serve their
purpose and be destroyed. It should have nothing to do with us and we certainly
should have nothing to do with them.
Whether democracy degenerates into a kind of mob rule or is
restrained by the auspices of republicanism – it really makes no difference.
Unless the commands given are a call to sin, we submit to the powers that be
whether king, president, godfather, general secretary, or some other figure.
Let them kill and devour one another. Let them destroy their economies and the
like. It's Caesar's coin after all.
But what do we see? We see Christians that have sold themselves
out to the order who cannot stand to lose their coin or the social status they
have attained and so they enter the fray – and cease to be pilgrims.
Rome, the final Danielic beast, the supreme even typological
and theological example for this age went through every phase – republic, empire,
praetorian protectorate, and oligarchy. Eventually it fell into a kind of raw
gangsterism and tribalism – and then re-emerged as a pseudo-theocracy that went
through many of these phases again.
But no matter the scenario, we're not to resist. We may be
conscientious objectors to the social order (which is bigger than the mere rejection
of military service) and some will view that as treacherous and subversive. So
be it but we're not their enemies – that is unless the Church is compromised by
false teachers who politicise the Body of Christ and turn it into a political
bloc. Then in that case the state has legitimate reasons to be concerned and
persecution is quickly transformed into punishment.
Many innocent Christians have suffered as a result of this
and have been sucked in (as it were) into this maelstrom, this doctrinal chaos
created by the false teachers. It's tragic as I'm sure some motives are pure
but they're in violation of New Testament imperatives. They have ignored and in
some cases willfully rejected the simple words of Christ – My Kingdom is not of
this world and you cannot serve God and mammon. They believe they're serving
Him but in fact they are being punished for resisting the state – in an
indirect sense for disobeying Him.
Again it's worth repeating that even in this chaos we who are
determined to be faithful are called to do good and to trust in God, even if
what is good is called evil by society and even the larger Church. We allow our
goods to be plundered, we flee (which is not a problem if you're a pilgrim) or in
some instances we die. The Christian Right stands in opposition to New
Testament ethics at these very points. The movement's leaders insist they
represent Christ in the social sphere but it's clear that many of them don't
even know Him.
Contrary to their aims and agenda we are called to bear
witness to an eternal kingdom. When we become entangled in the affairs of this
life we are not good soldiers because we're fighting the wrong war, with the
wrong weapons and ultimately we are found to be on the enemy's side... warring
against God and trying to build a counterfeit Kingdom.
Many point to dualistic Gnosticism as the enemy within the New
Testament, the spectre that's hiding in the background being combated by the
apostles. The full blown Gnostic system known to history was not yet manifest
and as a result many of these commentaries are in fact anachronistic. A more
careful reading reveals a spectrum of Hellenised Judaistic theology as the
principle enemy. There was a range of ideas in play sometimes straying into
forms of absolutised dualism which all Christians must oppose. But there were
and always have been monistic and even pantheistic tendencies at work in the Hellenistic-Jewish
traditions and while dualism is often hostile to worldly power (and thus was an
alluring doctrinal threat to a Church that taught something superficially similar),
the monistic tendency tends toward a unified and sacral view of the world and
thus society. These notions dovetail nicely with Jewish zealotry and chiliasm
and though few commentators and exegetes have focused on these elements they
are quite prominent in the epistles and are often the focus of apostolic condemnation.
And in fact these issues and tendencies are very much at the forefront of
today's dilemmas and struggles. These are live issues that are just as
pertinent to the Church in 2020 as they were in the first century.
----
*And there is no Christian 'civic duty' apart from obeying
laws and paying taxes. We're not called to be active 'citizens'. The only verse
they can marshal to buttress this argument is Matthew 22.21 (and its parallels)
that speak of 'rendering unto Caesar'. But this has nothing to do with civic
duty but instead is an acknowledgement that the coin is part of this age. While
we're told that our money belongs to God, the Scriptures reveal at a more
applicable level the money belongs to Caesar – it's his medium and has no part
in the age to come. We live in his realm and we can use it for some good but
it's not Christian. It's not neutral either as some teach. Mere quantity
changes its nature (its quality) and turns it into a trap. It poisons the soul
and pulls the possessor into larger spheres.
This is also why there is no such thing as Christian
business. Profiting and generating wealth is not a Christian endeavor. We make
money to live and eat but not to accumulate wealth. Our jobs are necessary but
they're not holy.
The abuse of the parable of the talents comes to mind as may
have false asserted that our Lord is teaching financial advice. This flies in
the face of what He taught about the parables and their nature. Do you weed
your garden? Wasn't Christ dispensing agricultural theory in the Parable of the
Wheat and Tares in Matthew 13? If not, then why would such spiritual Kingdom
truths (masquerading as mundane illustrations) be transformed into moral and
ethical imperatives in other parables? The same principle is at work. He spoke
in terms that could be understood. The lessons were not 'stories' or literal
examples of how to live but revealed
mysteries. Those who use the parables as financial advice and the like
demonstrate with painful clarity that they have not understood the parable's message
and have been denied the knowledge as it were – the point Christ is making in
Matthew 13.
This set of questions has been tortured and confused by the Magisterial Reformation's doctrine of Vocation, something I've addressed extensively elsewhere. In our day it has reached the heights of absurdity as we now have Christian leaders speaking of 'investment bankers' in heaven and the like. The coin will have no part in the age to come. It's not holy and cannot be. The notion of a 'Christian business' is an oxymoron as one Bruderhof leader rightly states. The Kingdom is not about the business of the coin, profits, markets and the monetary transaction. We do all things as Christians but that doesn't mean that all activities and aspects of daily life are now sanctified or part of Kingdom life. They are necessary but secondary, a simple means to an end.