When trying to explain how a First Reformation and non-resistance view might operate in today's world and how we might bear witness with regard to events, culture, and geopolitics - and yet not be part of it, I was reminded of the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War.
And yet this can't really explain the principle either as the Non-Aligned states were not trying to be contrary or dwell in a state of opposition, but rather to divorce themselves from the East-West divide in the Cold War. It's interesting that in many cases the leaders and thinkers were also willing to speak about the farcical nature of that conflict.
In my case, I'm not arguing for non-alignment on the basis of just trying to stay out of things or avoid conflict. Rather, it's a position best described as a deliberate, principled, and permanent opposition and particularly applicable to the present context, this adversarial posture is maintained regardless of any kind of Left-Right or liberal-conservative divide in terms of politics or culture war.
Right-wing politics are by definition nationalist and have historically embraced social stratification and in some cases market economics. In today's Western context both Left and Right Establishment parties embrace free markets and so despite the rhetoric coming from the right- the issue is largely moot. The American Left is not socialist. There are no socialists in the Democratic Party. Both factions are fully committed to capitalism and the Wall Street model which has vast implications for the culture and foreign policy.
Not all Right-wing politics and cultural visions are conservative. I have repeatedly pointed to fascism as examples of this. Military strongmen and other forms of dictatorship generally do not exist very happily with old Throne and Altar forms of aristocracy. Some of the latter will migrate and embrace Right-wing authoritarianism out of personal conviction or as a means of survival in the face of Liberalism and revolution.
Nationalism is idolatry and Right-wing politics are therefore anti-Christian and opposed to New Testament values. There's really very little to debate on this point.
Pre-Liberal and Pre-Revolutionary Conservatism in the West is associated with Christendom - whether of the post-Reformational Constitutional Monarchic variety or some kind of rank Throne and Altar paradigm which dominated for centuries in the West. Either way, these systems are opposed to the New Testament and in doctrinal terms - heretical. We must reject them and not be seduced by this false form of Christianity that teaches the Church to baptise culture and therefore mammonism and power in the name of doing good and creating a supposedly moral society. Those who argue this way need to either read some different history books - or more likely, actually read some serious ones to begin with. The supposed glory days of old Christendom are not what they think.
Liberalism's regime of Enlightenment epistemology-driven concepts of individual rights, social contract, liberty, and even economics are all anti-Christian and ultimately subversive. The history of the Church in societies like the United States have borne this out in painful terms as these concepts become intertwined with and confused with Christian doctrine and ethics.
Modern Leftism has in most contexts embraced capitalism and shifted focus away from the needs of the common people (or workers in some cases) to identity politics, social egalitarianism, and secularisation. In many respects it is the true heir of Liberalism - or we might say Liberalism gone to seed.
The inherent contradictions within so-called Modern Conservatism (operating within the Liberal spectrum) - which until very recently was the default 'Conservatism' in the post-war West, has led to internal and cultural crisis, as well as ideological implosion. Those committed to Classical Liberalism are either political orphans within Right-wing movements or are migrating toward Left-wing or Centre-Left parties. Others have re-evaluated Liberalism and found it wanting and have abandoned it. Others do so out of pragmatism. The confusion is made worse by the retention of Liberal slogans, ideological framings, and historical revisionism and manipulation.
And on another level when considering whether we as Christians can rightly be called conservative or liberal - the answer is we don't really belong to either camp.
We're not social conservatives as we reject patriotism and a defense of the status quo. We don't believe the 1950's or 1850's were somehow 'better' or more godly.
Do we embrace traditional roles? Traditional in terms of what? Christendom? There might be some overlap but our motivations are not cultural but doctrinal. New Testament Christians reject feminism and if taking the text seriously believe in ordering our marriages and families in a way that is at this point in time utterly counter-cultural - even in terms of most of the Church and the political Right. But we're not interested in having the state impose a semi-patriarchal family order through legislation, or some kind of Christian education system - which the state cannot do and if attempts to, it will pervert the Christian message. If pagan women want to work, invert their marriage relationships and gender roles, then so be it. Forcing them to conform to a Biblical domestic paradigm won't make them Christian. It will probably just make them angry and bitter.
The Church is only affected by this when it opens its doors to the world and through teaching heresy confuses the nation and cultural identity with the Church. This is painfully poignant as I drive by local churches over the Memorial Day weekend and see them decked out with flags, nationalist symbols, and other Americana. These same 'churches' will celebrate war and treat dead soldiers (who contrary to the oft-repeated lie did not defend the citizens of this country) as not only heroes but even martyrs. This is the logical result of the confusion of the nation with the Kingdom of God. Pastors and Christians who advocate this view will usually deny it when it's put to them, but their deeds tell the story and reveal their hearts.
We are not conservatives. New Testament Christians don't celebrate the nation or citizenship and if consistent with the New Testament, we refuse to vote or be selected for a jury. We reject the military. We may look traditional to outsiders but we reject the both the past and present status quo. Regardless, those who view all such questions through socio-political lens will not understand our position and will place us within the spectrum of right wing politics. Sadly at present when they see my wife and daughters with long hair, and modest dress, and my wife staying home - they assume we're Trumpites.
Likewise we're not liberal as we reject the regime of rights, the principles that undergird democracy and free speech, and the individualism that dominates modern Western society and its approaches to everything from entertainment to economics.
We're not liberal but on one level it may seem as if we're favourable toward many liberal ideas - but not the actual ideals. We might allow for a practical embrace but not idealistic one, and we need to recognize the danger of even a practical embrace as we've seen this has generated confusion and ultimately syncretism. But as those critical of nationalism, empire, and capitalism, we will be viewed as liberal and even radical by the right-wing and social conservatives.
The bottom line is we are adversarial. It's a different paradigm altogether. We are not aligned with the popular movements of the day. We are counter-cultural in all contexts.
The New Testament teaches the way is narrow and the Church will always be persecuted in this present evil age that is beholden to the god of this world. We are here to bear witness, take up the cross, and live as pilgrims and martyrs - proclaiming the doom of the celestial powers.
On a practical level since both cultural and political trends (which in an almost Hegelian-like dynamic swing back and forth) are evil, we must face the reality that this world is not our home and we have no friends here.
We must view it as a positive when one checks the other. When either side becomes too powerful it leads to persecution of the faithful.
When too powerful, a social democratic state will try and take our children - just like a communist or fascist state would. And history tells us that when Christendom becomes too powerful and bestial - it too will take our children as well. This was true under Romanist Christendom right up through the Christo-fascist dictatorships throughout the Latin world during the Cold War.
All regimes will (if able) set up thought police, censorship, and gulags either in the form of concentration camps, labour camps, or mental facilities.
Does this mean we're libertarians? Hardly. That's the worst and least Christian of all options as it rests on a sub-Biblical view of sin and the Fall. There will always be government and that is to be preferred over the alternative - even if it's bad government. Libertarianism works at best for a generation living on a frontier with endless land and inexhaustible resources. In any other context it simply means there's a vacuum which is promptly filled by bandits, warlords, organised crime, or some combination thereof. The state is often criminal and evil but when compared to the alternatives, it's the best option.
No, we must live with the reality of a state and we're told it's a net positive in these Last Days. It's not eternal and thus it's not worthy of our hopes or allegiances and Paul makes clear in Romans 12 that it's not an option for Christians. States will pass away with this age. They serve a purpose in terms of Providence but are given to idolatry and the bestial tendency. The rise and fall. When too strong they become a terror, when too weak, they create a vacuum. With either extreme, evil will flourish and it may flourish even when the state is moderate. Evil is always present in this age - the New Testament says this age is characterized by it. The world and its citizens are under Satan and bear his mark.
We may find ourselves in the context of a Liberal state - our modern democracies. These states (regardless of outward trappings and symbols) are fundamentally rooted in godless unbelief. When syncretised with Christianity they become heretical.
As stated, Christendom is a doctrinal heresy and thus when Christians reject it (Bible in hand no less) they are especially hated and represent a subversive threat that is in some respects more dangerous than a simple challenge coming from unbelievers. Church history bears this out as we see dissident Christians groups viciously attacked by so-called Christian states. We see both Catholic and Magisterial Protestant states engaged in this behaviour.
Finally there are states that are neither attached to historic notions of Christendom nor Liberalism. These states are organized around other principles - Islam, or some form of authoritarianism or even dictatorship. These states can easily become persecutors and while the Church may suffer under such scenarios it is strong as there is no threat of confusion. There are no divided loyalties, no nominal members. This is not pleasant in terms of the day to day, but for the Church it is healthy.
The Early Church was characterized by antithesis to the Roman world. It rejected its wealth and the violence that so dominates the history of the post-Edenic world and has always been justified and celebrated by the False Church. It lived as an eschatological community that showed kindness and charity in the face of opposition, persecution, and the general ugliness of the world.
The First Reformation emerged in movements that were motivated by the same concerns. They wished to recapture doctrinal purity and in terms of ethics these groups were motivated by poverty - which leads to some confusion and needless to say is not exactly an appealing or marketable message to today's Christians. The poverty was not absolute in the way the later Spiritual Franciscans would express it but rather in anti-worldliness, a rejection of power, and thus also of violence. They saw how power had corrupted in the Church in the aftermath of Constantine and led it into a state of apostasy. Determined to live differently they found themselves cut out of much of society and in other cases voluntarily rejected many social sectors and professions due to the inherent evil they engaged in.
During the following centuries they often found that in the context of the Guelph-Ghibelline conflict, they were able to live more peacefully under Ghibelline (Anti-Papal) rule - but that doesn't mean they were on the side of the Ghibellines or accepted the premise of their pro-imperial views. Later, many of the Protestants in Central and Eastern Europe found it preferable to live under the Turks than the Habsburgs. Under the Turks they could pay a tax and be largely left alone. But the Habsburgs would not rest until they were forced into the Roman fold.
The real spiritual danger came with Protestant states where these groups would flourish and lose their opposition and identity. I've thought about this many times while visiting places like Bethlehem and Lititz, Pennsylvania. The descendants of the Moravians lived in peace and prospered and lost their edge and after a few generations became like the world. Pennsylvania and America were a haven for them - and then in short order all but destroyed them.
This doesn't mean we must seek a hostile environment but we need to be very clear - we are always to some extent in a hostile environment. We can never forget this and if we're not feeling it (so to speak) then something is amiss and we're in danger. We must never be at home in the world. We must oppose the societies in which we live - even while we are salt and light to them and show forth love and obedience to their laws - as much as we are able. The modern political contests and allegiances of the apostate Church demonstrate to what degree these principles have been abandoned.
When the Liberals oppose the political machinations of the advocates of Christendom, I am not concerned and may even (to a degree) find some satisfaction in their victories - and the restraint of those who would warp Christ's Kingdom and turn it into an occasion for gain.
When the Christendom factions move to shut down the wanton and degenerate tendencies to which Liberalism falls into over time - I count it appropriate. Though I do not laud these efforts, all the more when they attach Christ's name and cause to their twisted use of the sword and coin. On a practical level it's good to see sodomite wings clipped but there's no real victory here. The causes are not addressed and the system championed by the Mammon-worshipping right will produce it again and again. The Scriptures affirm this.
We do not align with these factions that are of the world. They are necessary evils, Providential developments - but not approved of or sanctioned movements. The dynamic is ever at work and the biggest problem is when it stops and power is allowed to accumulate in the hands of one faction, family, or institution.
We are a permanent opposition, adversarial, and antithetical. There is no peace or status awaiting the faithful. As such, we are always relegated to second-class status and will be (by the standards of the society) in a lower and disenfranchised tier. As such we are 'poor' which may involve actual poverty or at the very least an otherworldly austerity and a rejection of mainstream values and aspirations. Our ethics will not lead us to wealth and security and our hearts ought not to seek these things to begin with. We are not looking for status or even economic stability. When the Church has attained such a prominence it is a red-flag - a sign of fatal compromise and apostasy. So it is in the context of today's American Church.
We are non-aligned when it comes to the socio-political factions. We acknowledge them and even their utility but we are always in opposition. And this is no less true and maybe even to a greater degree when it comes to the Christendom faction - most poignantly expressed in today's various forms of Dominion Theology.