The Gospel and Politics

[Resource Manager]

 

The Gospel and Politics

 

Party politics

 

In the western world all adults may vote for a candidate of their choice. He belongs to a party, which in Britain will usually be Conservative, Labour, or Liberal; in the United States Democrat or Republican, and so on. In the eastern world it may often happen that only one party is allowed, and in these “People’s Republics” the only freedom one has—and a risky freedom at that — is to spoil one’s paper if that party is not acceptable.

 

Religion has little to do with the matter, even when names like “Christian Democrats” are used, except that sometimes a party may be pledged to uphold the state religion, or the state atheism. Though the sovereign of Britain is called “Defender of the Faith”, she is in fact committed to the toleration of all faiths, whether professing Christ or not; and though the United States proclaims on its currency “In God we trust”, the reading and teaching of the Word of God is prohibited in its state schools.

 

All the same, religious people often do take part in politics, as candidates or as voters: and in this they find themselves side by side with irreligious people travelling the same roads. All the major parties contain people of diverse faiths and of no faith, and religion as such does not dictate their policies. Even so, the motives of many politicians and partisans may be good in them­selves: at their broadest they may seek the well-being of the world as a whole; and, with progressively narrowing interests, they may seek instead the interests of their country, their race, or their class. At the very worst the motives may be purely selfish, the seeking of a career, or a means to securing personal advantage. At the worse end of this spectrum it must be em­barrassing for religious people to collaborate; at the better, the fact that the good of man is sought without any real regard to the glory of God must represent a grievous compromise of godly thinking.

 

This can be demonstrated easily. Suppose that, in Britain or America, say, a “Christian Party” were to be formed. Its pro­gramme might be:

 

“Vote for the Christian Party and the Sermon on the Mount. When we are in power all will be taught to hunger and thirst after righteousness, to love their neighbour as themselves, to turn the other check. None will be permitted to look on a woman to lust after her, and all ungodly and unwholesome literature will be proscribed. All children will receive thorough Bible instruction, and alt parents will set them a good example by regular worship. None will lie nor deceive: our Yes will be Yes, and our No, No. Masters will rule without self-seeking, and servants will obey in humility without resentment.”

 

All of us know what the outcome would be. In Britain, where every candidate forfeits £150 if he fails to get one eighth of the votes cast, to contest 630 parliamentary seats would be to hand over £94.500 to the Exchequer! Voters in the main are not anxious to submit themselves or their country to the Christian discipline.

[Resource Manager]

God’s politics: a look into the past

 

A few minutes in the Old Testament will be well spent to intro­duce this theme, for there a Chosen Nation was given its national constitution by God, which is surely the very thing we need to know about. This was the foundation clause:

 

“Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, You shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5-6 All Scripture quotations are from the Revised Standard Version.)

 

There was nothing democratic about this at all. God imposed His law on His people, and expected them to accept and obey it. They, on their part, conceded the Tightness of this demand with,

 

“All that the Lord has spoken we will do.”

 

That was the charter. God made the laws, and the promises of blessing too. Israel might keep the laws and inherit the promises, or break the laws and run into the peril of (at least temporary) disinheritance. It is never contemplated that the people should be a democracy, and even their kings were expected to administer God’s laws, and not to tinker with them, for

 

“When he (the king) sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law . . . and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them.” (Deuteronomy 17:18-19)

 

Of course Israel was a nation, and Canaan became their country, so kings had to rule, priests to direct worship, Levites to teach, and judges to administer justice. The nation needed, and was granted, a civil and military administration: but the laws of God were what they were expected to administer. And as a matter of history, during those periods when the administration was godly, the nation prospered; and when obedience to God declined, so did the nation fall into decay. About half-way between Moses and Christ the kingdom fell prey to its enemies, and at the time when Jesus came, after a period of precarious inde­pendence, the Jews lived under the overlordship of the Romans, and were yearning for their freedom.

[Resource Manager]

Jesus’ politics: an essay in humility

 

It is so easy to think of Jesus as the founder of democracy, as against the authoritarian principles of the Old Testament. His personal humility, his readiness to suffer all manner of insult and suffering without complaint, his willingness to serve his disciples, his counsel that none should think himself better than his brother, all seem to make him very unlike the ancient kings, and very unlike the God of absolute authority Whom the Old Testament depicts:

 

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must he your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28)

 

But this goes too far for democracy. Not only was Jesus meek, but he expected his disciples to be meek. They, too, are to endure wrong, cultivate humility, and refrain from posing as judges. The restrictions which Jesus imposes on aggression leave little room for either private or political agitation, as the Sermon on the Mount well shows (see Matthew 5:3-5; 5:38-42; 5:43-46; 7:1-5).

 

Besides this, Jesus was really no democrat at all. Seen as a man he was humble and self-denying. Seen as God’s representative he was as uncompromising as Moses. When he says, “Verily I say unto you” we can take it that he is laying down the law, as surely as any prophet ever did with his “Thus saith the Lord” Though his disciples are his friends, it is only if they do what he com­mands them (John 15:14); it is right to call him “Teacher” and “Lord”, for “So I am”, he says (John 13:13). And in regard to politics, as to everything else, the only thing which the Christian can do is to approach his Teacher and Lord and ask, “Lord, what should you like me to do?” (Acts 9:6; 22:10)

 

Jesus’ politics: an essay in obedience

 

One thing is absolutely plain. Jesus and his disciples never sought any part in the government of the Jews or their land, either by collaboration or by revolution. With regard to the Jewish rulers, the Scribes and Pharisees are to be obeyed when they speak for the Law, even though they arc not to be copied in their lives: debts are to be paid, or otherwise the disciples will deserve the punishment of the law. Even Jesus himself will pay his temple tax, though as Son of God he might have refused it. Roman taxes, too, must be paid, and if the disciples were per­secuted their one redress was to run away to another place. The world was one thing, and the disciples were another. The world might hate them, despise them, or ignore them, but it must not be allowed to assimilate them. The disciples lived, practically speaking, as wanderers in someone else’s country, and the situa­tion was one they were expected to accept. Their task was gospel-preaching, not meddling in politics or revolt.*

 

The crisis of all this is the declaration of Jesus before Pilate, from which derives the present subordination of the disciples to all authorities, Jewish or Gentile:

 

“My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my Kingship is not from the world.”(John18:36)

 

This extends the disciples’ abstinence to military matters as well as to politics, certainly, but it docs make quite plain that Jesus, at least at that time, gave no countenance to Christian involvement in the administration of the country in which they lived. Even among fellow-Jews, members of the Chosen Race, the disciples were to think of themselves as political strangers.

 

-------

* For those willing to turn them up, here are some of the many passages from the Gospels which point this way: Matthew 5:10-12; 7:1; 17:27; 23:2-3, Luke 12:58, John 3:19; 7:4, 7; 8:23; 14:17; 15:18; 17:9

[Resource Manager]

The Apostles’ politics: the new Chosen Race

The situation does not change after the resurrection of Jesus. His apostles continue where he left off. It is true that the position of the Jews as a nation changes, for they had been warned by the Lord himself that, when they put him to death, they would for a time be disinherited:

 

“Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.”(Matthew 21:43)

And this is exactly what happened. Some Jews were converted, of course, and at least the first rive thousand Christians in Jerusalem were Jewish (Acts 2:41; 4:4). But the attitude of the nation as a whole hardened as the Gospel was spread among the Gentiles, and judicial Jewry declared itself clearly to be anti-Christian (Acts 13:46), and against the conversion of Gentiles (Acts 22:21-22). When they crucified the Lord they called wrath for his shed blood upon themselves and their children, and on his way to the Cross itself. Jesus warned them of the wrath to come (Matthew 27:25; Luke 23:27-30). And the persistence of the rulers in the same hatred of the name and work of Jesus demonstrated clearly to what dreadful fate their rebellion against God was leading them:
 

“(they) killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved-so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last.”(1Thessalonians 2:14-16; see Luke11:45-51)

But long before the Jewish state was actually destroyed, in AD 70, the new nation spoken of by Jesus had come into being, and Peter writes of it in these significant words:
 

“. . . they (the Jews) stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priest­hood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy:’ (1 Peter 2:8-10)

For the time being, that is, God has rejected natural Israel,* and replaced it by a people who used not to be called a nation at all. They become a nation by accepting Christ, which itself comes from hearing the word of God, faith, and new birth in baptism (1:22-2:2). In fact they are drawn out of any nation, for the Lord sent his disciples to preach “to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”: some are Jews, others Gentiles, but they are all one in Christ Jesus. (Luke 24:47; Galatians 3:26-9)

-------
* So many people speak as though the natural Israel is permanently cast off, having nothing further to do with God’s purpose, that we must clear away this possible misunderstanding. Israel is now being restored to Palestine as the Bible promised; and the glory of the coming Kingdom of God, and the joy of the resurrection of the dead, awaits the time when the restored nation will “look on me whom they have pierced, and mourn for him” (Romans 11:13-26; Zechariah 12:10; Revelation 1:7).

[Resource Manager]

The Apostles’ politics: strangers and pilgrims

 

The Apostles treat this mixed community of Jews and Gentiles in exactly the same way as Jesus treated his first disciples. Peter, for example, goes on to say to them:

 

“Beloved, I beseech you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh that wage war against your soul. Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God: Honour the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:11-17)

 

This is the Christian’s political charter. You live, Peter says, in a world controlled by non-Christians. They appoint the rulers, and they make the laws. It is your duty to keep their laws, and give them no ground for accusing you as lawbreakers. It is true that you, as Christians, have a far superior standing in God’s sight to theirs, but you are not to use this to further lawless ends. Just as Jesus paid the temple tribute when he need not have done, so are you to remember that you serve God best by letting men see your humility and obedience.

 

Paul’s attitude is the same. Every believer is to subject himself to the ruling powers, for conscience’ sake, keeping their laws and paying their taxes (Romans 13:1-7). In doing this they are to show all meekness to all men and avoid contentions (Titus 3:1-2).

 

It is again more a question of atmosphere, at this point, than of word, but is it possible to imagine the apostles dwelling so pointedly on our duty of obedience to the powers that be, without coming to the instinctive conclusion that they, like the Lord Jesus, regard the powers that be as one thing, and the disciples as something other, different, and apart?

 

But it is more than a matter of atmosphere and instinct. The apostles freely give advice to disciples on how

 

(1) masters should treat their servants;

 

(2) servants should serve their masters;

 

(3) subjects should obey their rulers.

 

Why do they not tell rulers how to treat their subjects?* For they do not. There is not one word of advice to Christian magistrates or governments.

 

This quite extraordinary omission allows of only one con­clusion: it did not enter into the mind of the Apostles that there could be such a thing as a Christian magistrate or government. The Christian would always remain a pilgrim in other peoples’ worldly countries until his Lord should come to take the kingdom to himself. He might be a man of property, or be poor; he might be a master or a slave (or, nowadays well-nigh universally, a hired servant); but he would always be a subject, and — for the silence speaks with unambiguous eloquence — he would never be a ruler.

 

And the situation has not changed. There are superficial alterations in procedure, but few in substance. Kings are rarer, and presidents are elected; people think they have put their own governments into power, and are encouraged in the illusion that they are governing themselves. But governments remain things of this world, and the Christian’s part in them is nil: outside them, his duty is to obey.

 

-------

* Passages in support of this paragraph are too numerous to put in the text. They include: 1Peter 2:13-25; 3:1-7; Romans 13:1-10; Ephesians 5:22-23; Colossians 3:18-25; 4:1; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; 6:1-2, 17; 2 Timothy 2:24-25; Titus 3:1-2.

[Resource Manager]

The modern Christian’s politics

 

There is another way of putting this, of course. If this world is usurped by unbelieving men with whom the Christian should not join hand in hand in government (whether to govern, or to put the government into power), then the Christian himself looks to another government, and another Governor. To him, Jesus Christ is already King. If he is not yet acknowledged by the world, he is surely acknowledged by those whom he has bought with his blood. And for that reason the Christian has, at present, his “citizenship in heaven”. There sits his King enthroned with the Father; thence he seeks his help and strength in time and need; to this place he looks for the signs of his king’s return, when he will gladly go out, and meet, and serve him. For him to serve executively some other worldly ruler would be inconceivable.

 

The disciples are a “little flock” in a big and menacing world. Only the return of Jesus with his angels will put to right a world which “lieth in wickedness”, and before then the Christian has to expect a situation in which evil gets worse, even governments themselves more corrupt, and a wicked conspiracy of worldly powers themselves will claim sovereignty over the minds and bodies of men, “whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming”. No wonder that the Bible bids God’s people “come and be separate” from such a Babylon as this!*

 

When the Christian can break the law

 

The same Apostle Peter who tells us so plainly what the Christian duty is, and who forbids us to use the liberty which belongs to the disciples of Christ as an excuse for licence, did himself at one period of his life find himself obliged to flout the injunctions of the powers that be. And that was when they told him and the other apostles that they must no longer preach their faith. Then the painful choice arose: who takes priority? The worldly ruler, or the God we serve? And in that context Peter was in no doubt which was right:

 

“We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29; see 4:19)

 

which was exactly the position of the three men in the furnace, who told mighty King Nebuchadnezzar: “ We will not serve your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up!” (Daniel 3:18). A Christian must not break the law to his own ends, but he must put the law of his God first if the powers of this world should presume to trespass on God’s prerogative. But this still leaves him as the passive agent in the world’s arrangements: in political matters the world sets the pace, and the Christian adjusts himself to its demands when his conscience towards God is satisfied.

 

-------

* Some of the evidence for these statements will be found in 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10; 2:3-12; Revelation 11:15-19; 17:1-18:24; Psalms 2 and 46; Daniel 2:44: 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

[Resource Manager]

When the Christian can use the law

 

Though this is not quite the same as involvement in politics, it is part of a related problem. The Christian does not make laws, and does not appoint those who do. Nor does he invoke the laws for his own personal advantage, otherwise the counsel of the Lord Jesus concerning suffering injustice, and Paul’s about refraining from revenge (Matthew 5:38-42; 6:14-15; Romans 12:19-21) would be very difficult to sustain. And the Christian certainly does not invoke the law of the land to settle his disputes with his brothers (1 Corinthians 5:1-7). Paul observes very pain­fully that the Christian within his community is supposed to be in training for rulership in the Kingdom of God, and that it is a very poor testimonial to his progress if he has to go to the worldly judges, wash his dirty linen before them, and ask them to deal with matters too difficult for himself!

 

But the two occasions when Paul used his standing as a Roman to prevent himself being flogged (Acts 16:37-39), and to avoid a trial loaded against him in Jerusalem (Acts 25:9-12) were of a different kind. He sought harm to no-one else, but a simple right entrenched to him in the Roman code. In a similar way, if the law of our land provides for Christians a right of conscience, say, in times of war, or a right of remission of tax for certain charities or premises, the Christians are entitled to invoke the law to secure them: but none of this has anything to do either with law-making, or with using the law to gain victory over rivals and enemies.

 

But what about Joseph and Daniel?

 

It is all very well, it might be said, to speak as though the true believer is a pilgrim in other people’s lands, without rights or participation in their administration. But Joseph became Grand Vizier in Egypt, and Daniel and his friends Viceroy and rulers in Babylon, so why cannot Christians? (Genesis 41:39ff; Daniel 1:19; 2:48-49; 3:30; 6:2, 28).

 

This is not easy. Joseph, doubtless, was used by God for the preservation of the infant race in times of trial, so that they might be able to go into the promised land at the appointed time. Daniel, too, was evidently God’s instrument for His own pur­poses, perhaps even raised up to influence the mind of Cyrus of Persia to assist in the repatriation of Israel to Palestine (2 Chronicles 36:22-23). But in both cases the inspiration and direct guidance of God were evident in their interpretation and revela­tion. What God did through them in the days when He was preparing His chosen race, or preparing for their return, by the direct exercise of His power and wisdom, is not to be taken as any sort of precedent for our wilful flouting of our position as “strangers and pilgrims”, in the days when there is no open vision. Our present task is to perfect a different sort of co-operation with existing authority:

 

“First of all, then, 1 urge that supplications, prayers, inter­cessions, and thanksgiving be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

 

Our powers for good with the authorities over us are to be exercised through example, and through intercession with God on His throne of grace.

[Resource Manager]

Petty politics

 

National politics are not, of course, the only problem. And as we reduce the scale of our interest, so do we reduce the evidence available to decide what we shall do. If we do not govern the nation, nor elect its government, may we govern the city and vote in local elections? If we do not make the laws nor try to be High Court judges, may we be magistrates or stipendiaries? If we may not actually pass the sentence, may we be members of the panel of “twelve good men and true” who help to arrive at the verdict? If we should not join political parties, can we join Trade Unions or professional associations? And may we elect their committees: or stand on them?

 

It is hard to see that what applies to nations docs not apply to cities, so local politics come under the same axe. It is hard to see that “magistrates”, in Paul’s sense of the term, does not include magistrates in our modern sense too, so being judges of any kind seems to be eliminated. (In any case, why, in our pilgrim position, should we want to hold such an office? There is so much of a more specifically Christian kind that we ought to be about.)

 

The jury problem will remain a vexed one for some time to come. That the law (in Britain) provides little opportunity of legal escape from jury service is not really relevant, for if such service were offensive to conscience it would come under Peter’s “We ought to obey God rather than men’’, whatever the conse­quences. What each one has to decide is whether weighing the evidence, and coming to a conclusion as to what took place, is the same thing as judging and administering the Law. And all that this essay has to say (notwithstanding some rather strong convictions on the part of its author) is. “Let every men be fully convinced in his own mind!” (Romans 14:5). Is one should, at ail events, despite the sensitive conscience which says that this involvement in the processes of official procedure is an odd thins for a “stranger and pilgrim” to be engaged in, and who thinks that the Christian, in such cases, might well echo the sentiments of his Lord and say, “Who made me a judge or divider over you?” (Luke 12:14).

 

And as for unions and associations and the like, we have no certain, or specific, word from the Lord. What each Christian man and woman has to decide is: If this post of mine demands a membership of a certain union, what does that involve? Is it merely paying a fee? (In this case I surely may forego that portion of my earnings). Is it supporting a party? (In that case I can surely opt out of the contribution to its funds.) Is it engaging in strikes or lock-outs? (In this case I can surely stay at my post for so long as practical circumstances allow.) And in that spirit he or she will make answer. But if the question is: Shall I agitate for certain political views, or fiscal rights, or whatever-it-might-be? Then the answer must surely be: No! I will not. And if membership of the union or association in question involves this I will refuse, and seek my livelihood somewhere else. More specific advice than that it is, in this writer’s view, impossible to give. Hard heart-searching, followed by compassionate understanding, seems to be needed here.

 

Only one other qualification can be offered: if the Christian is invited to associate himself executively with such activities he will do well to refuse: for if he consents he will find it hard to escape involvement in the politics, coercion, and pressures of political movements, and this is not for the servant of the Lord, who “must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Timothy 2:24).

[Resource Manager]

Is not this merely negative?

By no means. It is, of course, possible for the one who would opt out of his responsibilities, to call himself a Christian and abstain from every good work on that account. It is no less possible for those who would earn a Christian reputation for himself to join the ranks of the “do-gooders”, and compromise his Christian faith in the unique salvation offered in Jesus Christ. But it is also possible for one who wants to maintain untainted loyalty to the Gospel of salvation in Jesus, to exercise in his private life the compassion, selflessness, and concern for the wellbeing of those in need, which will preserve its due sense of proportion and, knowing the inevitable frustration of human endeavours to right the world, will say to the spiritually lame,

“In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk!”

Alfred Norris

GospelPoliticsNorris.pdf


Note to Christadelphians: "This booklet may still be in print, and along with others with this notification almost all are still in copyright. The Document scans were originally uploaded to www.god-so-loved-the-world.org and Christadelphian Bible Discussion Forum and are intended for use by fieldworkers and campaigners in preaching, where paper copies are not available. Most of the scanning errors in the original Word Documents have been rectified and file has now been reproduced here in Portable Document Format (.pdf). Christadelphians are requested to please not take advantage of this archive by downloading for personal use and avoiding paying the Publisher. If you do download any of the booklets with this notification and for the purpose of personal use would you please follow up with a donation to the original Publishers @ www.theChristadelphian.com to cover the cost of hard copy purchase."