7 The Philosophy of Christian Involvement
7.1 Overview and Prerequisites
The aim of this chapter is to build a case for a revival of the position that champions active political and wider cultural involvement, attempting to prove not just the divine prerogative of our involvement, but what the governing principles of our involvement should be. We then examine what is the locus of the problem for Christians: the role and interpretation of Romans 13. We asserted at the beginning of our study that unless philosophy is transformative, it has failed in its purpose and so this section is not an addendum to our study of epistemological self-consciousness but a central part of it. We have already learnt that arguments as epistemologically self-conscious Christians must be done on a scriptural basis at every step:
“[Christian Philosophy] must always be based on an accurate interpretation of the teaching of the Scriptures. For some…there is a danger they may derive their knowledge more from [secular, unbelieving] philosophy than from a careful study of the Scriptures. They tend to extract just a certain number of great principles from the Bible and from there on they more or less forget the Bible and work the application out for themselves… True theology should always be based upon a careful and accurate exegesis and exposition and understanding of the Scriptures…we do not derive any theological principle from one scriptural statement only.” [1]
Thus, we are in complete agreement with the sense [2] of what Lloyd-Jones asserts, disputes of praxis need to be resolved by exegeting the objective text of scripture rather than just preferring one version of subjectivity over another and then tagging on a few scriptures we used to validate our argument otherwise constructed from outside of scripture.
This is the governing principle for the simple reason that these matters at hand are needing to be settled because they are serious enough and are recognized as just not matters of preference where we accept Christian freedom and liberty which would admit of a range of positions.[3] We are assuming that the questions before us are of the type that can, to a large degree, be settled. The issues are foundational where we should be able to arrive at what is the scriptural position that is arguably binding in its essentials on all believers. They are not trivial issues of individual conscience (though we will recognize the important place of conscience) but admit of both philosophical and theological reflection and study.
7.2 The Imperative for a Political Ethic
7.2.1 Is Political Involvement Legitimate?
A question that could be in some minds and which concerned me greatly a few years ago as I became frustrated with what I considered insipid evangelical theology regarding our political and cultural positions, is whether it is right for Christians to be involved at all in the wider cultural or political processes. Are we not rather to be engaged in loading up the “[Noah’s] Ark of the Church” before we are removed either by the Rapture or the Second Coming? A famous radio preacher during the 1940s put it this way “you do not polish brass on a sinking ship” [4] and he spoke for two generations of Fundamentalists.
Thankfully, I believe it is straightforward to answer this question biblically as the apostle Paul had to write very early on in the life of the church to prevent people leaving their employment to wait for the coming of the Lord,[5] despite that the Second Coming was considered imminent even by himself.[6] For even while having this eschatological conviction, he at times insisted both that believer’s should work and on his political and civil rights as a Roman citizen.[7] He had no problem addressing Agrippa in a political context and eventually appealing to Caesar to prevent his undoubted martyrdom at the hands of the Jews.[8] That is, we do not cease to have rights, a political relationship and a responsibility to our nation because we have joined the kingdom of God. Lloyd-Jones summarized it this way, “our citizenship is in heaven does not mean we do not stop being citizens [on earth] in contrast to various movements within the church. Thus, we should [remain] involved in politics.” [9]
One of the biggest problems in some “Christian” countries during the 20th century which had almost continual revival for fifty to sixty years is the prevalence of economic, social, and moral corruption in their societies. In some countries of Central and South Africa now which now have over 90% Christian populations, they are known for their mass poverty, corruption, and a lack of basic infrastructure despite being some of the richest countries in terms of their natural resources. However, far more dramatically and with much more polemical force for our purposes here, Cope vividly describes how the most “Christianized” city in the US (the most “Christianized” nation in the world) failed to show any difference in many of the basic social indices that would make it a “good” place to live [10] in direct contradiction to the regenerating narrative of the evangelical churches.
In my view, and I believe it to be self-evident, this demonstrates a total failure of this form of “revivalism” to reform their societies by failing to reform the political and social dimensions of society.[11] Our political philosophy is a “fake” gospel if it does not change the social and political character of the nations in which it is applied. Without such a political philosophy, we are just surrendering cultural real estate to secularism and humanism and failing in our primary objective of “discipling all nations.” [12] Thus, what is argued in this chapter is a rejection in principle of any withdrawal from the marketplace as advocated in some Christian convocations in lieu of reflections on the Trump era [13] and the building of the case for an informed, increased involvement and commitment to see reform in the political realm.
7.2.2 One Further Possibility – Political Neutrality
It must be recognized that there has been a flurry of thought, scholarly and otherwise, in Christian circles on this issue triggered by the “Trump Problem.” [14] In one relatively recent convocation on political theology in which I was an invited participant, the discussion proper began by presenting an argument based on cultural relativism, the thrust of which was that our reading of scripture is never neutral but colored by our cultural glasses. The application of this was then that politically, we had been unable to see that we had fallen in love with democracy [15] and our way of doing things to the degree we had entered an inappropriate “syncretism” of our understanding of scripture with the understanding of the political arena and, consequently, had incorrectly formed alliances or loyalties with particular politicians or parties.[16] Our closeness to particular ideologies [17] had meant we were no longer capable of understanding God’s perspective and articulating a Christian political philosophy. The rest of the discussion was to present a “corrected” political theology that would restore to us this function.
In brief, the principal feature of the position being advocated was a type of political agnosticism and detachment from the workings of the political world. That is, God is indifferent to our political systems, and we should be too other than to trust He puts in the leaders He wants to fulfil His Kingdom purposes.[18] Now, despite its initial plausibility to us an argument, we must always remember that philosophically any argument based on asserting relativism and insurmountable cultural prejudice must exempt itself from its own analysis to have anything coherent to say because otherwise, it too becomes just another culturally conditioned narrative, nothing more than a possibility in the sea of competing possibilities; as the meme goes, the argument “all judgments are relative” is rightly footnoted “except this one.”
The very fact I am asserting we are suffering from cultural prejudice and zero objectivity in reading scripture is asserting that I can stand outside of that prejudice and culture and make that assertion. If that is the case, then I have just refuted my own argument which is my point about relativism above, the presenter proceeding to give us a political theology on their own analysis will be just as full of inescapable presuppositions and cultural prejudice; granted, they will be different ones but present, nevertheless. Thus, I believe such an argument (the details of which I examined in far more detail here [19] ), is an illegitimate and a retrograde step; the church has never improved a society by withdrawing from it but when it was fully engaged in it.[20]
7.2.3 The Lack of a Shared Cultural Reference
The principal qualification for Epistemological Self-Consciousness to be important in this reformation results because of the collapse of a shared value base of Judeo-Christian origin in our wider culture, even if it was grudgingly maintained.[21] Indeed, at the present time, the very negation of those standards is considered praiseworthy and righteous.[22] Similarly, recent history has witnessed some watersheds in Christian culture that mandate a re-examination of Christian political philosophy. First, the polarizing influence of the Trump presidency demonstrated the antithetical and incoherent positions that were held by Christians regarding his first term as president. Second, the political tyranny of the COVID-era policies and the almost universal capitulation of the churches to what we will argue was the illegitimate use of authority by the national and international governments.
7.2.4 The Importance of Our History
A shocking discovery for many is that this is not the first time in Christian history that this subject has taken on an elevated importance:
“One of the most foolish aspects of modern life is the tendency to assume that all that has happened in the past is quite irrelevant and unimportant and that nobody knew anything until this present generation came.” [23]
Thus, this means a good look at Christian history to understand the different views of the Christian understanding of and involvement in the political process. We would all benefit from a good history lesson and learn from our past. We are not called to make an idol of the past or to canonize tradition, and we are called to “forget those things [the excrement of religion] behind us” [24] but that is something very different from ignoring the lessons of our history.
7.3 The Role of Epistemological Self-Consciousness and Two Basic Principles
7.3.1 Are We Called to Defend Truth?
Another strong statement during the convocation was made that as a matter of principle, “we are not called to defend truth but relationships.” This takes some unpacking to counter its undoubted intuitive appeal and surface profundity; it has the distinctively pragmatic, postmodern, and Rortian flavor — we are to value the subjective relations and operations rather than being concerned about grasping that elusive nettle of “truth” and “being right.” [25] Certainly, we can all accept that truth might be progressive for us and as a pluralistic form of life we do not need total agreement amongst ourselves to value each other’s views and perspectives. In that respect, we can “defend” our relationships from unnecessary angst, particularly from those outside. However, in the name of epistemological self-consciousness, I am constrained to immediately question the proposition that we are not called primarily to defend “truth” in preference to “relationships,” even more so when the leader of our religion claimed the title of “The Truth.” [26]
As with many things postmodern it is difficult to locate precisely what is meant by “relationships” here, but our early fathers of the faith really had to work hard in sorting out our basic theology in the midst of both internal schism and external philosophy. Perhaps more compelling from a pure exegetical perspective, our New Testament pattern demonstrates a radical stand for “(T)ruth” in the ministries of Jesus and Paul, and explosive confrontations to wit. Thus, despite being a painful and sometimes explosive process, the results of say the Council of Chalcedon or the Council of Nicaea are still with us. This is even more the case with the forensic logic of Wycliffe, Huss, Luther, and Calvin in challenging papal dogma with scriptural precedent that began the Reformation. The strength that came from taking a position and then defending it was of benefit to not just the Church but the entire social and economic order. The Reformation broke the hold of Aristotelian metaphysics and made possible the scientific revolution.[27] In this sense, epistemological self-consciousness is a recovery of what has been lost, rather than some radically novel innovation.
In summary then, although there are matters of subjective preference over which we do not divide there is solid, objective ground on which most evangelical Christians should stand if they are thinking clearly. The testimony of scripture for us is normative, we are called to be intelligently “dogmatic” in the face of challenge. If we are not defending truth, then apologetics is redundant, and our faith is arbitrary. However, we have argued in our previous sections that Christianity is objectively defendable and presentable in such a way the unbeliever understands the challenge intellectually that is given to them. Only the spirit of God saves people, but Peter addresses us that we should be ready to give an apologia. An apologia is not simply a testimony, but a reasoned defense of our faith; a defense by which we defend the truth.[28] Thus, this must also include a defense of a set of political principles.
7.3.2 The Response of Epistemological Self-Consciousness in Brief
Thus, regarding our project, both as issues of philosophy, theology, and methodology, we should be promoting political involvement of believers at every level of the political state to restrain the evil direction in which our political states are going.[29] We might formally agree that under certain sets of circumstances, partnership with politics is a form of idolatry, for it is God that raises up those He chooses and casts down others [30] and who are we to question God? [31] However, that does not mean that partnership with politics is always idolatry or that we should always accept powerlessness rather than influence if we are not to make immediate nonsense of “making disciples of all nations” and the “kingdom coming on Earth as it is in heaven.” [32] Again, this would seem self-evident that the kingdom does not come independent of the political realm, you cannot have kingdom standards in social and political matters without those who can understand and implement them in positions of power and influence.[33] In other words, the argument needs to be had not only about the legitimacy of certain principles but also in the details of working them out.
7.3.3 The Domains of Study
Thus, epistemological self-consciousness warrants a strong, positive statement of Scriptural principles. There is a lot of theological and philosophical complexity in such an important subject, so it requires us to cover a lot of philosophical ground by considering at a most basic level what the bible tells us:
- About the relationship of ourselves as individual members of the body of Christ (the church) to the political state.
- Of the relationship of the institution of The Church to the institution of the political state.[34]
When we get those basics right, we can establish the necessary principles to both answer the questions and evaluate to what degree what was presented to us is scriptural, complete, and defensible. The evaluation is only ever against scripture and scripture alone.[35]
7.3.4 Our Civic Responsibility—Recovering It Through Dominion Theology
For those of us who are children of the Reformers, the sacred-secular distinction should be an untenable dichotomy that we should not accept, because it is certainly not a biblical one—there is no secular for the believer. If we do not argue on such a basis, we have already surrendered the ground to the secular-humanist opponents of Christianity. As we have argued repeatedly through this work, our position should be rather at its foundation a distinctively Christian one perhaps captured perfectly by Abraham Kuyper in an 1880 speech as he opened the university which he had founded:
“There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’” [36]
For Kuyper, there was no sacred or secular; all was sacred:
“Whatever man may stand, whatever he may do, to whatever he may apply his hand – in agriculture, in commerce, and in industry, or his mind, in the world of art, and science – he is, in whatsoever it may be, constantly standing before the face of God. He is employed in the service of his God. He has strictly to obey his God. And above all, he has to aim at the glory of his God.” [37]
This emphasis is also found in J Gresham Machen who like Kuyper, was concerned with the whole of culture and the transformational power of the gospel. Machen was the founder of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929 after the split with Princeton caused by the removal of the commitment to orthodox Christian theology as a requirement for ministers to graduate from the Seminary. He was a passionate believer in the reformation of all culture by ensuring there could be Christian education at all levels rather than a centralized, State-controlled education.[38] This was his first-hand response to the noted anti-intellectualism, obscurantism, and narrow evangelistic focus of the emerging Fundamentalist movement of the time.
Unlike the Fundamentalists, Machen had not just defended scripture, but the entire Christian worldview, against Liberalism and was concerned with the regeneration of all of culture.[39] That is, despite this nominal thematic agreement with Fundamentalism regarding the status of scripture, Machen was really the precursor of the modern Dominion Theology movement whose central theological distinctive was to become the entire reformation of culture.[40] It is a theological position that has no reticence in taking political positions based on his understanding of the implications of scripture. Machen was aggressive in his statement of the need to battle in the realm of intellectual ideas, believing correctly, that it was ideas which would come to dominate the political direction of a nation:
“We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.” [41]
Thus, through some noted professors of WTS such as Cornelius Van Til and a second generation of students such as Greg Bahnsen (both of whom should be familiar names from earlier in this work), his cultural philosophy became foundational for the Presbyterian Dominion Theology movement that emerged into public view in the early 1970s with Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law.[42] Within five years, by the time Rushdoony sponsored the publication of Bahnsen’s Theonomy,[43] it had begun to assert itself strongly as a controversial school of Reformed theology. However, as we noted previously, it is only controversial to those who have forgotten that theonomy was central to the Reformed position and was the dominant influence in the Puritan confessions.[44] The intellectual climate of Christian thought had become so dominated by the import of the autonomous mindset of non-Christian philosophy that it ceased to be authentically Christian. Our work is, in many ways, a restatement of these principles in a novel context.
7.3.5 The Theonomic Imperative
Thus, in vanilla Reformed social theory, theonomy (the “Law of God”) is contrasted with “autonomy” (being the law to myself). Cope captures something for us that must be fundamental to our political philosophy:
“The law given to Moses [is] to disciple the newly free nation of Israel. God begins to speak for himself and gives clear, concise, and very specific instruction for how to achieve justice in a community.” [45] (Emphasis added).
We will all stand before the judgment seats of both the Father and the Son to give account according to the moral and social principles of this same Law. Though we may have cultural idiosyncrasies, and we may need to probe beneath the application to find the principle, God’s Word is not rendered null and void by our culture. Again, Cope clarifies this for us whilst fully admitting our responsibility for establishing the application of the Law in our culture:
“Remember that the truths of the Bible are told primarily in story form. We study the history and the context, but we will never be in the same circumstances as Moses and Israel, so their application will not necessarily work for us. The principles, however, are God’s truth and are applicable in new and dynamic ways in any age, any set of circumstances in any nation.” [46] (Emphasis added).
Importantly, for the postmodern apologist, those “new and dynamic ways” do not extend to contradicting the explicit outworking of those principles in the nation of Israel that are given, as the Apostle Paul tells us, “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training.” [47] Now, and this is my main philosophical point, you cannot be “corrected or reproved” in just any type of fashion, there must be objective standards of correction or reproof. It can only be just if it applies equally to all in morally equivalent circumstances.[48] It is God who defines the “morally significant” components of our reasoning through His Law—polygamy becomes no more acceptable to us, even if it is culturally normal for us. To argue otherwise, is simply the Christian form of cultural relativism and needs to be dismissed as such.
To take a much more politically significant specific example, we can consider the social gospel movement, even the more “evangelical” version of it associated with evangelicals such as Ron Sider. It is often stated by apologists for that movement that God “told us ‘Not to steal’” but “did not define ‘stealing’ for us.” This is an outright fallacy, we have chapter upon chapter within Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and the restatement in Deuteronomy, that establishes the principle of private property, your right to it and that stealing is the illegitimate violation of those property rights. It further gives a penal code and authorizes the punishment of thieves; but equally, not all theft is treated as criminal, there are extenuating circumstances, but all theft is defined as sin and retribution is always made.[49] As Cope argues, they are “dynamic” in the sense we do not talk about boundary markers and oxen when we talk about property rights, but it will apply to our cars and tax systems. This is not to deny that there are not places of ambiguity or of great challenge as to how we are to understand and apply God’s Word, but it becomes very clear whether our cultural practices measure up to His Law or not in many cases because of the fruit that they bear.
7.4 Theocracy or Representative Government
Some vocal critics of Dominion Theology argued it was urging the creation of a theocracy, where society is subject to the direct rule of the Creator.[50] However, such a view is a puerile distortion of the position and scripture itself mandates a theocracy only for the nation of Israel.[51] It is of note that even for the ancient Israelites, the LORD instructed them to choose the wise amongst them to “govern themselves” with the Law giving clear instructions for representative government and what we would call “checks and balances”:
“you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. Let them judge the people at all times; and let it be that every major dispute they will bring to you, but every minor dispute they themselves will judge.” [52]
This, of course, is the precise reason why the American Founders adopted the model of representative government they did.[53] In practical terms, this side of omniscience, there are limits to what statecraft can accomplish. Politics is not messianic, or Jesus would have perhaps started a political party or conquered the Roman Empire.[54] We must make a clear distinction between what an individual Christian as a member of the state can do and what the church as an institution can do. The individual Christian can be a politician, and the church should be clear in its statement of principles over a political matter:
“[T]he church keeps to the realm of principles and not detailed programmes. She does not, as it were, enter into the arena either through preaching politics, or by sitting in the House of Lords.
[T]he business of the individual members of the church to work out these principles, in detail, for every aspect of life. Christians must not confine their Christianity to their own personal lives and piety and their own acts of worship. Christianity takes up the whole person. If men and women really believe the gospel, it must govern the whole of their outlook and thinking.” [55] (Emphasis added).
There are thus some principles of involvement emerging here, not for theocracy but for participation and representative government: [NL 1-2]
- The Church is not to be involved in the details of a political programme but is to teach principles.
- The individual Christian is at liberty to be involved to whatever depth is necessary to ensure that the “powers that be” are “influenced in the right direction. It is their duty to do this, and they must not abdicate from their responsibility.” [56] [/NL 1-2]
So, in summary, we can accept with Lloyd-Jones and with Cope that a “perfect” society is not possible on Earth but that does not mean we cannot have the expectation of a better one more in line with the principles of the kingdom this side of any return of the Lord; we can accept that a complete reformation is only possible with the personal presence of Jesus, yet it is possible for us to be His government now because that is what He tells us in the ‘Great Commission’:
Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
The imperative verb here is the making disciples rather than the teaching or the baptizing; the discipling or Christianizing of our society, or our reformation, salting, or whatever word we want to use, is what is commanded and expected.[57]
7.5 Understanding Romans 13
7.5.1 Overview
Few passages of scripture have created as much controversy as Romans 13 owing to the chronic lack of understanding of it in the modern Christian consciousness despite there being substantive studies available. During the COVID lockdowns, an uncritical use of the passage was made to justify the unconditional surrender of religious freedom and civil liberty by the vast majority of Christian leaders. Unfortunately, this demonstrates a complete ignorance of the passage and demonizes all those over the centuries who found within the scriptures a mandate for social reform, civil disobedience, and political revolution. It would indeed be perverse to rebuke a Luther, the abolitionist movement on both sides of the Atlantic, the American Independence movement or the Apartheid activists within the South African church for a refusal to submit to the governing authorities.[58]
However, Romans 13 does require interpretation and contextualization to counter what some have argued is the plain sense of the text. That said, it is not my intention to do a verse-by-verse exegesis as this has been authoritatively and competently completed by Lloyd-Jones, taking him 162 pages which we cannot afford here.[59] That said, I incorporate most of his arguments in the following section and modify them as necessary with my own revisions as we draw conclusions from our present context. The early Christians needed the apostolic input of Romans 13, 1 Tim 2 and in 1 Peter 2 because the believers needed to know how to respond to pagan rulers who were often extremely hostile to the point of persecution and execution.[60]
We will only consider Romans 13 extensively in this section because it is the locus of most discussion amongst believers regarding the relationship of the individual Christian to the state and of the institution of the Church to the State. 1 Peter 2 is very much a recapitulation of the Pauline teaching, we know Peter clearly took direction from Paul and considered his works scriptural (2 Pe 3:15) and we only mention it here in passing as this is a good reason to highlight this specific feature of Peter’s view. 1 Tim 2 has the primary subject of intercession for those in authority that the social conditions of effective evangelism might be possible and will not be considered further here other than to emphasize such intercession was expected by Paul to create those conditions. We are not to hide in our Christian ghettoes watching the reign of the antichrist and waiting for the Rapture.
7.5.2 The Context of Romans 13
It must be remembered that this section does not exist in isolation from the sections around it. This is important because some commentators seem to think it is an intrusion or clumsy insertion of thought. Yet this is a new subsection in the section that began with chapter 12—the application of the doctrine laid down in the first eight chapters.[61] The great emphasis of chapter 12 is that of “living peaceably with other people.” Chapter 13 is thus perfectly in position, “[Government enables us] to live peaceably with one another, to maintain order, to avoid disorder.” [62] The “vengeance of God” mentioned in 12 would then arguably be part of the function of the State and its laws. So, the first great conclusion we can draw from Romans 13 is the legitimacy of the State in principle as against those who reject all the institutions of men as fallen and illegitimate.[63] God has instituted it that the conditions of social peace might exist for the benefit of all:
“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone– 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior.” [64]
However, and I believe this is where many formulations regarding our rights, relationships and responsibilities are at their weakest, is that based on this foundational principle, it then becomes much too easy to give the State much too much authority over the church and the individual believer, to the degree that all the believer is entitled to is a weak, passive resistance, or martyrdom. In contrast, we will find as we work through the chapter that there is a justification for a Christian taking part in a revolution to overthrow a corrupt government.
7.5.3 Obedience and Submission are Different Concepts
So, let us consider the first verse of Romans 13:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and those that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.”
Thus, it is straightforward to understand why many teach an unconditional obedience to the State. This is reinforced by some commentators who note that the term translated “be subject” was originally a military term meaning “to rank under” but this is one of those occasions where we need to understand the semantics of the word have moved far beyond its original meaning as witnessed in the Greek literature of that era of what the Bible is an integral part. By overstressing the etymology, extremely severe interpretations of this passage that would admit no conditions for civil disobedience. As Lloyd-Jones explains, there are three other Greek words in common use during that period would convey far more strongly the concept of “obedience” if that was what Paul had wanted to communicate. We must understand that “be subject to” does not simply mean “be obedient to” though the Greek verb in the middle voice was sometimes used with this meaning.[65]
Thus, continuing our analysis, subjection implies a reasoned choice. For example, Eph. 5:21 states “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” and it should also be clear that in this case there is clearly a logical difference between subjection and obedience. Both parties cannot simultaneously obey one another if a difference arises but they can respectfully resolve their differences by having a mental posture or attitude of submission. To not recognize this is to make this and other examples [66] of the usage of the word logically contradictory. Thus, Lloyd-Jones argues the context demands “making room for” or “preferring out of respect” as appropriate renderings.
7.5.4 The Boundaries of Christian Resistance
So, a minister of the State demands respect unconditionally only with regards to respect for their office and conversely, the ruler must behave in an honorable and just manner before the people because that is the terms of their ordination before God, “He means the powers that are governing [well] and maintaining law and order.” [67] Thus, it is pointedly not proven that every occupant of the office “has been ordained by God” and thus we are not morally obligated to immediately obey them if they are not governing well. Particularly, we need to ask what we are to do with rulers who abuse their position or are tyrannical. We need only think of Nero using burning Christians coated in tar to light his feasts or of a Hitler orchestrating the Holocaust.
This can be made clearer by an analogy. If our nation was attacked or was in imminent danger of being attacked, most of us would consider it perfectly just to sign-up to fight if we were asked to, in addition to whatever diplomatic response there might be. We might even end up fighting for our nation and killing people of another nation to preserve our freedom. We would consider this “self-defense” and it seems a concept well-founded in the Hebrew scripture. There was no scriptural mandate for a standing Army in Israel but there were certainly borders and there were arrangements made for tribes to join with one another for national defense and settling disputes militarily if diplomacy failed.[68]
Thus, we should at least be able to ask the question, if those that attack us just happen to be members of our own nation and those in authority over us, should we not too have a right to self-defense? The logic of the Second Amendment of the American Constitution was based on just that type of reasoning. The colonists and settlers had come from nations all over the Old World where the monarchs and priests systematically oppressed the people and, in some eras, the people were systematically tortured and killed in the most brutal and public fashion often at the behest of the papal hegemony that used the army of the Holy Roman Emperor.[69] They came in search of religious freedom and political liberty. This is why Lloyd-Jones, who was something of an expert on the Puritanism of the early colonists, was able to write:
“Surely, as Christians, we are entitled to argue that if a state, a king, an emperor, a governor, a dictator or anybody else becomes tyrannical, then this state is violating the law of its own being and constitution as laid down in Romans 13:2.” [70]
That is, the State was instituted, as 1Tim 2:2 states, to ensure “we may lead a peaceful (tranquil) and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (NET). Thus, he continues:
“The moment…the State turns itself into a master and into a tyrant, it is disobeying the Law of God that brought it into being and it must itself be punished; and the form the punishment takes is that the government is thrown out and replaced by one that is prepared to abide by the teaching of Romans 13:1-7” [71] (Emphasis added).
This statement begs the question, “what does ‘thrown out’ mean?” Are we permitted to fight, with arms (as the American founders felt it necessary to mandate) to evict a tyrannical government? We have already seen the inadequacy of the unconditional submission position and we can see that our options are much greater than simply a passive resistance, but just what are the limits of our resistance.
7.5.5 Christians can be Revolutionaries
The “just war” is defined as an extension of the duty of a magistrate to “restrain evil” and it is exactly this moral imperative to “restrain evil” that allows “[a Christian] to take part in a rebellion to change your government.” [72] Whether that evil is internal or external to a nation, it is not an option for us to ignore it. Such an action is the “last resort” as is going to war; but as it was necessary to go to war against a Hitler, a Mussolini, or a Stalin, for the purposes of restraining their evil, so it is necessary to resist the evil of our own leaders.
Indeed, this is not unusual in the history of the protestant church and was a feature of the movement around puritan Oliver Cromwell (the English Civil War) that spawned egalitarian groups such as the Levellers and the Diggers who prefigured many of the policies which became associated with the later labor and trade union movements.[73] Christians were very active in these movements and the Workers Educational Association (WEA), a Christian wing of the Working Men’s Club movement (that was founded to promote literacy amongst working people) still exists in the UK today in accord with its original mission, whilst the WMCs are rather tatty, low-end social clubs.
Now, it is also important to recognize that there are degrees of resistance between non-resistance and a full-blown rebellion that we can exercise. We start with dialogue and our elected representatives, but we cannot allow ourselves to be neutered when our representatives cease to represent us. We can protest, we can boycott, and we can take collective action both as individuals and as collections of congregations to try and ensure social or political change; though with congregational action there are specific issues which we do need to consider if we are not to confuse the individual and church institutional positions in relation to government. However, in cases where oppressive government tyranny is directed at the congregation as a whole, e.g., in the banning of public worship (as happened during COVID), the congregation should be able to respond collectively.
Now, I hope it is understood that I am not asserting we are immediately revolutionaries, it is just we need to understand we can be in the extreme. We can agree as Lloyd-Jones puts it “Christians should always be the best citizens in the country” and “good and peaceable” [74] in their basic attitudes. We have an ethical obligation to be the best citizens we can be and to be the most cooperative with the authorities over us as we can morally be. Even Stalin began to lessen the persecution of Christians because of the reputation for them being the best workers.[75] Christians, by default, are on the side of law and order because they understand that sin has produced lawlessness among men and that lawlessness needs the sword of the State to restrain it; this is also why Paul makes the statement it is an “issue of conscience” (v5) that we submit and even to pay taxes to ensure the smooth operation of the State. However, Lloyd-Jones strongly and immediately qualifies this general orientation to the State after establishing it as a basic principle with this statement:
“[T]here is a limit beyond which it [the submission to the State and its enactments] is not true. It is quite clear in the scriptures that if the State should ever come between me and my relationship to God, then I must not obey it.” [76] (Emphasis added).
During the COVID-19 pandemic we have just suffered, this limit was undeniably violated throughout Europe as congregations were prohibited from congregational worship and our almost universal failure to resist has cost us enormous space in the public sphere. Where there was or is substantive resistance, as was the case with the River Church in Tampa, Florida and in some of the other US states where governors rejected federal mandates, the contrast could not be greater—they had full liberty to meet for worship, and citizens can trade freely with one another rather than lose their businesses and become reliant on federal welfare. This is also why the book of Acts provides the narratives for us of the conflict between the early church and the “authorities” that we might know there is no unconditional moral mandate to obey our governing authorities.[77]
7.6 Final Words
In this chapter we have sketched how we apply the basic principles of epistemological self-consciousness to our political philosophy, specifically we established the principle of involvement and that it should be an involvement that is not passive or neutral. We asserted that it is an anomalous distinctive of 20th century evangelicalism to separate from wider political and cultural involvement. The Reformed Church has had a history of political involvement since the days of Luther and Calvin, through to modern figures such as Machen and revivalists such as Finney.
We noted that for as long as there has been a Christian church, there has been political opposition to it as witnessed in the biblical narratives of Acts in which there are recorded accounts of conflict. We then dealt specifically with the contemporary difficult issue of Romans 13 noting that because the biblical narratives record conflicts with the authorities for us, a simple, surface reading of Romans 13 is insufficient. We also rejected that the correct Christian position was one of agnosticism to the political environment, 1Tim 2 implies prayer for a social environment conducive to the preaching of the gospel which is correlative to a pluralistic political context.
We considered in some detail the account of Romans 13 provided by the finest evangelical expositor of the 20th century, Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones. He drew the distinction between “honor,” “submission” and “obedience” in considering the original Greek syntax and semantics of the passage. His central posit was that a State invalidates itself when it behaves in a tyrannical manner and when it intrudes into matters over which it has no jurisdiction, particularly in matters of religious practice and liberty. Only when the State is the minister of God to bring order and punish moral evil, is obedience to the State required. We found that Lloyd-Jones even argued for revolutionary activity by believers was permissible as the act of ejecting an immoral or tyrannical State that had delegitimized itself. He argued further that the individual Christian is perfectly at liberty to be involved to any degree in political activity but the domain of the institution of the church was separate to the political institutions, its role was to be the moral guardian that would speak into these institutions rather than to be directly involved in the institutions of government, e.g., bishops sitting in the House of Lords.
We broadly agreed with his position but noted that he was writing during a time when the Judeo-Christian position was broadly accepted in all major political parties. Our qualification was that this is no longer the case, and the Church needed to expose the morally degenerate nature of “secular” politics and to support those parties which support ethical positions more in line with the gospel. This implied a greater level of involvement of the institution of the church in political life and its explicit support of parties or policies. We maintain with Lloyd-George that the Church as an institution was not to argue for a theocracy which was reserved for Ancient Israel alone, but it was to argue for a theonomical political position, seeing the principles of jurisprudence and government as immutable principles. God, in His Law, not only provides us with Commandments as top-level principles but works out the application in detail in the succeeding narratives.
In general, then, we were to defend Truth rather than to cede to postmodern subjectivity or cultural relativism, noting that the Reformation and Councils of the Church established these as prerequisites for culture. A strong view of Truth also ushered in the scientific revolution. We concluded that we cannot have kingdom standards in social and political matters without those who can understand and implement them in positions of power and influence. In other words, the argument needs to be had not only about the legitimacy of certain principles but also in the details of working them out.[78]
[1] Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 16–17.
[2] Whilst Lloyd-Jones maintains a strong distinction between philosophy and theology which we have argued against, he does so in a way we can clearly understand with a clear rhetorical sense; I have supplied the understood sense with my amplifications in the square brackets. As Calvin tells us, our aim is a philosophy constructed from scripture, whilst most describe his works as works of theology. In the Institutes Calvin frequently uses the Latin and French equivalent words for “philosophy” in both positive and negative senses, drawing a similar distinction as Lloyd-Jones does in rhetorical passages, often prefixing it with “profane.” The Latin “profane” explicitly carried the sense of “outside [pro-] or before the temple [-phane],” of heretical and godless thought. He clearly talks about “constructing a Christian philosophy” (Institutes, loc. 550) close to the head of the work. This is the sense in which this thesis has argued that philosophy should be conceived in this manner. Thus, I have no problem with the contextual interchange of the words “theology” or “philosophy,” and it is a practice I shall follow occasionally in this chapter.
[3] This is discussed in magisterial fashion in Lloyd-Jones, Exposition of Chapter 14, see 1 Cor 1:12; Rom 14, 1–23. His multi-volume commentary on Romans was one of the notable achievements of 20th century Christian scholarship. A website that preserves his legacy is found at https://www.mljtrust.org/ .
[4] Quoted in Rushdoony, God’s Plan for Victory, loc.175.
[5] 1 and 2 Thessalonians. The injunction “if one does not work, one does not eat” was made in the eschatological context within these letters.
[6] 1 Cor 7, 26 ff.
[7] Acts 22:25; Acts 16:37.
[8] Paul was certainly prepared to die for the gospel (and he did) but seems to have had a much bigger problem with rank injustice amongst those that considered themselves just and civilized (Acts 25:16). Additionally, like Jesus, he took the greatest exception to hypocrisy, particularly the religious hypocrisy (Acts 23:3) of “the Jews.” Like the Johannine use of the term, “the Jews” here refers to the Jewish authorities which were an unhealthy political-religious hybrid, and it is not used as an ethnic slur. The authorities were the chief adversaries of both Jesus and Paul in their ministries.
[9] Lloyd-Jones, Exposition of Chapter 13, 17.
[10] Cope, Old Testament Template, 21–27.
[11] “Revivalism” in the modern sense is a term most associated with the ministry of Charles Finney (1792–1875). However, as noted earlier in the thesis and expanded upon in my Dominion, I demonstrate how he was extremely active in the political, educational, and wider cultural spheres. He did not limit himself to “spiritual matters” as was to become the habit of some of his imitators in the evangelical and Fundamentalist movements of the 19th / 20th century, most of whom believed any such engagement was a “distraction” from the real task of saving souls.
[12] Matt 28:19–20 (NAS).
[13] Brown, Evangelicals at the Crossroads. Brown distils the issues down exceptionally well here, he has an earned doctorate (and it shows), as well as a substantial standing in the evangelical world.
[14] For my extended use of this term, see Macneil, Politics, Appendix A.
[15] In Macneil, Politics, I discuss how the argument was made that democracy or republicanism is no more God-ordained than say, despotism or some other form of totalitarianism. Even the Nazis could be commended for “keeping order” if the alternative was violent anarchy. We might be prepared to countenance the last proposition, but we should remember the Nazis were voted in, but then they made very sure they could not get voted out.
[16] In this case, “Trump.”
[17] In this case, Republicanism and/or political conservatism.
[18] This “Kingdom” language might seem a strange idiom to those outside of modern charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity. In brief, Jesus = King, dom = His domain, which includes the church but also his providential rule as “King of kings, Lord of lords” (Dan 2:37; Rev. 19:16, (NAS)) which is explicitly dealing with the civil and political authorities.
[19] Macneil, Politics, § 2.
[20] As I also argued in Macneil, Dominion Theology, § 3 ff.
[21] I would say it arguably existed through to the mid-1980s, perhaps to the end of the Thatcher era in the UK (which itself finally petered out after a long, slow decline in 1990.) The “sexual revolution” that began in the second half of the 1980s on the Left (when I was a member of various far-Left groups and witnessed it firsthand) legitimized (culturally, at least) cultural ideologies with violently anti-Christian premises, which were a wedge to evict the ghost of Christianity from the public square.
However, even during the subsequent Blair era in the UK (both Labor leaders John Smith and Tony Blair were active members of the Christian Socialist Movement), certain moral matters were “banned” (unofficially) from journalist’s questions despite being newly “fashionable” for the radical (or liberal) Left. A journalist who referred directly to the homosexuality of certain Cabinet members would no longer be “invited” to briefings. The US situation is more complex in regard of “shared values,” but it should be noted that Barack Obama publicly defended marriage was for heterosexuals as late as 2008 to get the black evangelical vote.
[22] See for example, my blog, Censorship—The New Normal; Troughton, Cancelling Christians. [Online] Available at: https://thecritic.co.uk/cancelling-christianity/
[23] DMLJ, Romans 13, 135.
[24] Paul refers to “dung” in his famous “forgetting the past and pressing to the future” passage of Philippians 3 which contextually, dealt with his previous life in Judaism. The word he specifically uses in 3:8 was what we would call a “swear word,” it was only used in vulgar conversation.
[25] One of Rorty’s famous quips was “take care of freedom and truth will take care of itself.”
[26] John 14:6 (NET): Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
[27] The lack of progress in science was a notable feature of the medieval period until the Reformation, despite major advances in other areas of culture (progress in medicine was perhaps the exception). This issue is examined comprehensively in Butler, Philosophy.
[28] ἀπολογία: defense; as a legal technical term, a speech in defense of oneself reply, verbal defense (2Tim 4:16); BDAG emphasizes this is a speech in defense, it is a reasoned, rather than inspirational or preached.
[29] This position, I believe, represents an orthodox Christian perspective. Granted, some might see our moral condition as the most enlightened or advanced that it has ever been and that our governments served with distinction in keeping us safe during COVID whilst simultaneously respecting law, life, and liberty.
[30] Dan 4:17 (NET); Rom 9:17 (NAS).
[31] See Romans 9. In my view, the chapters 9, 10, and 11 of Romans contain some of the most complex and challenging logic of the Christian scriptures.
[32] Mat 28,18–20; Mat 6:10 (NAS).
[33] Some mystical iterations of Christian belief might dare to assert this as I touch on in Dominion. This is normally rooted in a controlling catastrophic pessimism regarding the human condition. In certain Gnostic heresies this might also be the case, imported into this view was the Platonic conception of the inferiority, even the evil character of the physical.
[34] We are all members of the body of Christ, what Luther called the “priesthood of all believers.” However, this is conceptually and practically distinct from those who work full time in The Church as a ministerial calling. We tend to be very loose in our use of the term “church,” see Cope, Old Testament Template, 103–12.
[35] Care should be taken here not to misinterpret this as to say any source of theology outside scripture is illegitimate, otherwise all the philosopher or theologian could do was to copy out scripture. It is rather that the rooting and grounding of our philosophy is in scripture and hermeneutically in scripture as a whole.
[36] Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” 488.
[37] Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 45.
[38] Machen, Education. This was a collection of his speeches and essays, as well as an account of the founding principles of Westminster.
[39] Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 1–13. This introductory section is invaluable reading as a restatement of a Christian conception of culture and immediately engages with the necessity of warfare in the cultural realm and specifically with socialistic political philosophies. It must be remembered Machen had witnessed the Russian revolution a mere five years to publishing this work and the greatest intellectuals of America like John Dewey who were laying the foundations of the “Progressive” movement which was to incubate American socialism. It is arguable that the baby has just been born, it is only in the Trump era that American politicians in the mainstream Democratic Party and in the mainstream media, were happy to campaign under the banner of “socialism,” despite Marxism, in the guise of “critical theory,” having been well established in the academy since the 1960s.
His ‘Christianity and Culture’ address, which is the first part of this collection, was originally entitled ‘The Scientific Preparation of the Minister’ and was delivered on Sep.20, 1912 at the opening of the 101st session of Princeton Theological Seminary. This at once shows how basic in his thinking was his concern to engage and transform all of culture and how this eventually motivated him to break with Princeton and found Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).
[40] When Machen founded WTS, his first professor of Apologetics (who was to remain over 40 years in that post) was Cornelius Van Til whose work featured predominantly in earlier chapters of this book. Rousas Rushdoony (who had written the earliest summary of Van Til, By What Standard?) was the man most responsible for developing the perspective in a sociological direction which became known as “dominion theology” or “Christian Reconstructionism,” see Macneil, Dominion, §§ 4.5–5.4.
[41] Machen, Christianity, Culture, and Liberalism, 6.
[42] Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law.
[43] Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics.
[44] It was rather the position, arguably of Augustine and given its systematic expression by Calvin. It was developed by his successor Beza, by Bullinger, our own John Knox and then the Puritan movement of the 1640s, from which modern Reformed theology owes most.
[45] Cope, God and Political Justice, loc. 231
[46] Cope, Old Testament Template, 62
[47] 2 Tim 3:16, (NAS).
[48] Even Sartre accepted this piece of moral reasoning. He framed it in terms of a man having to choose between fighting in the Spanish civil war and taking care of his sick mother. Whatever he chose, he would choose for all men. It is a misnomer to think existentialism equates with a lack of binding or universal ethics. One of Plantinga’s earliest papers (1958) discusses Existentialism and Ethics.
[49] That is, there is a civic sanction associated with it. One example in scripture is associated with the stealing of a small amount of fruit; restitution is made but there is no further punishment. In other cases, there is a fine, compensation and restitution. It is an oft neglected feature of the Law code in the Hebrew scriptures that it encourages intelligent discrimination of the nature of a misdemeanor or a crime.
[50] “The Righteous Revolution—Could there be a theocracy in America’s future?”, http://prosocs.tripod.com/riterev.html.
[51] On a practical note, we would do well to seek such a society, but it would be introduced based on consensus, not imposition. It is of note that George Washington, the first American president, made such a proclamation based on consensus of the Congress.
[52] Exodus 18:21–22 (NAU)
[53] This story is vividly told in Barton & Barton American Story which is notable for its use and enumeration of primary sources. The scholarly standard for early American religious thought is Noll, America’s God.
[54] One stream of Jewish messianic thought had precisely this expectation, one which was evident even in his disciples (Acts 1:6). There was great disillusionment with Jesus for his political “weakness”; after welcoming him into Jerusalem, they were happy to shout “crucify him” a week later.
[55] Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13, 159.
[56] Lloyd-Jones, Roman 13, 159.
[57] The NET Bible exegetical note is informative here: “‘Go…baptize…teach’ are participles modifying the imperative verb “make disciples.” According to ExSyn* 645 the first participle (πορευθέντες, poreuthentes, ‘Go’) fits the typical structural pattern for the attendant circumstance participle (aorist participle preceding aorist main verb, with the mood of the main verb usually imperative or indicative) and thus picks up the mood (imperative in this case) from the main verb (μαθητεύσατε, matheteusate, ‘make disciples’).” *Here they are referring to Wallace, Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament.
[58] In the dying days of apartheid, it was common for government ministers to quote Romans 13 to the dissident church centered around Archbishop Tutu.
[59] Lloyd-Jones, Romans—Exposition of Chapter 13, 1–162.
[60] I deal with this passage more fully in, https://planetmacneil.org/blog/should-i-obey-my-government-civil-disobedience-in-the-covid-era/ .
[61] Chapters 9, 10, and 11 form a self-contained pericope on the problem of the Jews and their relationship to the gospel. There are still important principles in these passages, but the chapters are strongly focused on the Jews.
[62] Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13, 2.
[63] This was one of Calvin’s strongest criticisms of the Anabaptist post-Reformation movement (sometimes called the ‘Radical Reformation’) which became progressively to reject all forms of human authority. The seeds of messianic Nazism and Communism are sometimes argued to have originated in their theology which justified violence against all non-believers (where the non-believer was widely conceived)—they were celebrated by the DDR (particularly Thomas Müntzer) in the 20th century for the attempt to create a commune in Munster in 1534. However, the experience of Munster moderated their politics such that the Amish, Mennonites, even Quakers and Baptists all lay claim to some kind of heritage from the Anabaptists. In an important sense, all these groups were social radicals but became committed to a demonstration rather than an imposition of Christianity. See Verduin, Reformers for a historical review from within the Reformed community but with sufficient chronological distance to present a well-balanced view.
[64] 1 Tim 2:1 (NAS).
[65] To emphasize our main point here regarding the semantics of the word, BDAG the academic “standard” reference work for the Greek language of this period, does not offer the meaning “obey,” listing only the passive and active voice. Vine’s Expository dictionary (another standard work) lists “obey” as a possible but minor inflection in the passive or middle voice, noting the military origin of the word. The Strong’s number is 5293 and Strong lists “obey” as a possibility for the middle voice. Pertinently, the “middle” voice (often reflexive in nuance) was dying out during this period of the Greek language adding to the improbability this was the sense intended.
[66] Col 3:18; 1Pe 3:1, 5.
[67] Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13, 23.
[68] Deut. 20:10ff.; Josh 4:12; Num 32:6–25.
[69] The “Holy Roman Emperor” was a title bequeathed by the Pope on one of the monarchs of Europe once the Papacy had established its domination (c.600AD). This then made that monarch’s military resources available to the Pope for dealing with “heresy” in any nation rebelling against his authority. The monarchs were normally feuding with one another as well as trying to weaken the authority of the Pope over their nations. This was why some of the Monarchs were sympathetic to the proto reformers such as Wycliffe and Huss who vigorously asserted the political autonomy of nations and the superiority of the civil authorities over the Church within the national boundaries.
[70] Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13, 46; Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans.
[71] Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13, 46.
[72] Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13, 69.
[73] The history around these groups and their relationship to Cromwell is contested history and all did not go well, but there was a strong element of novel Christian political thinking in all these groups.
[74] Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13, 51.
[75] This is a well-known paradox, even in today’s Russia, where specific Christian ministries have access to and favor with the highest levels of the Russian government (I personally know of two) because of their reputation for honor and ethical conduct. Similarly, in some Islamic countries, Christians have access to TV-stations because they are honorable and pay their bills on time.
[76] Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13, 52.
[77] Some might object that it was the religious authorities they came into conflict with, but Roman history does tell us that the Romans were shrewd enough to allow a degree of autonomy to their colonies in the sense they could keep their own civil law if they recognized the supreme jurisdiction of Rome. In the Donatist controversy in the early church of North Africa, this was as simple as throwing some incense on the fire once a year. We can glean this from the gospels and Acts where the governors would rather, that the Jews “judge according to their law” (Acts 18:15; Acts 24:6) than get involved in such civil disputes. It was why Pilate was just plain reluctant to get involved in the trial of Jesus and refused to judge as justice demanded but rather in accord with what he perceived as public opinion.
[78] There is far more to be said on the details of this involvement, see Macneil, Politics.