If we as Christians in America can find significance and application in the relationship of the 1st Century Christians to Rome, and the 1st Century Christians found significance and application in the relationship of the exiled Jews to Babylon, then we can use the experience of the Jews in exile in Babylon as a framework for how to interact with the nation in which we are in “exile” (albeit a very difference kind of exile). Let’s make this simpler: Babylon = Rome = America (as far as application goes, not fulfillment – I’m NOT saying that America fulfills any sort of prophetic oracle, I’m only saying that we can find application in these 1st Century texts for us today).
So. . . all of that to ask this: what was the relationship of Jews to the Babylonian regime? And, what is the significance of that to the question posed by my last post (and subsequent replies from very able students)?
First, it was not one of complete separation from the political arena. Daniel was employed by the king, as was Nehemiah. Esther indeed married the king. If we look back further into OT history, we find Jacob’s son Joseph as 2nd in command of all Egypt. With this in mind, it seems strange to suppose that God desires the people of His Kingdom to be utterly and completely isolated from the worldly political sphere.
Second, it was a relationship that sought the “prosperity and peace” of the kingdom they lived in. Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles is helpful here:
“This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: ‘Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.’” (29:4-7)God’s first command to humanity, to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, serve and subdue the earth (in short: bring Eden to the whole world) is still in effect. How do we seek the prosperity and peace of America? Does that include voting for measures that stop people from creating life simply to then destroy it? Does that include voting and even working for people who want to serve the people by building better schools and roads and who work for peace around the world? I think it does.
But here’s the other side: what is precluded in the relationship of God’s people and the state is the worship of the state. S, M, and A refused to bow down to the idol. Daniel would not give up his prayer life after it was made illegal. John had to endure exile and the death of 11 Apostles (including his brother) because they taught that Jesus was kurios and “Son of God,” not Caesar. God’s 1st commandment applies just as much as His 1st command. We shall not have “other gods” (like the “will of the people”). We shall not worship the nation.
This then leads to a difficult point of application: what constitutes the “worship” of the state? Does a “God and Country” worship service on the 4th of July weekend cross the line? Should we expel all U.S. flags from places of worship (and especially stop pledging allegiance to that flag in our VBS’s)? To me, there is a major difference between a simple act of public involvement, like voting or serving on a jury, and the examples above, which to me do cross the line (or at least blur it beyond all recognition).
I shouldn’t be surprised at the reaction of students to this blurred line between God and State that they’ve experienced in conservative churches (though it isn’t any better in mainline churches – just different issues). In many ways, I appreciate their prophetic call to stop burning incense in Caesar’s temple. But, if I may be a tad Hegelian here, is there a synthesis to be found between the 2 extremes, one that acknowledges a God-given responsibility to His created order (which includes the fallen political sphere) but refuses to give full and complete “allegiance” to anything but Yahweh? I hope there is. I’m striving (and struggling) to live that way.
4 comments:
...
Thanks for your response.
First of all, you've used an OT paradigm, which doesn't answer Stephen's questions regarding what the NT says about the two separate divinely ordained purposes of the church and the state. In the OT, "church" and "state" were always mixed, from Leviticus on, or from 1 Samuel on (depending on how you read). But in the NT Jesus calls a people into his own kingdom, one that does not do things the way the world (which includes Israel's monarchy) does them. The call in Romans 13 and elsewhere to submit to the authorities and honor the king cannot be read anachronistically as a call to participate in a constitutional democracy (not that you made that error explicitly). Rome was evil. Honor the king, submit to the authorities--these don't mean support or participate in government. It describes a subordination made possible by the resurrection and the rule of Christ.
This brings us back to ARod's point, which you have not yet, in my view, answered directly. Obeying the law is one thing. Willfully and freely participating in the political process of an earthly kingdom is something else. What in the NT (forget the OT for a minute) encourages you to participate?
In your original post on voting, you said, "If Peter and Paul called the Church to be good residents in a tyrannical empire, do you think they would ask less of those who live in a representative democracy?" But you're making a mistake in your application here. What you've done is conflated two rival versions of politics, two rival versions of the good. Peter and Paul called us to be good residents of the empire, not by the empire's standards, but by the standard of the rule of Christ. "Against such things there is no law."
America has its version of what it means to be a good citizen. Pay your taxes, vote, support the troops, don't aid national enemies, etc. etc. Are these the standards Peter and Paul were advocating when they called us to be good residents? Apart from paying our taxes, which we do because Caesar's face is on the dollar bill, I just don't see it.
As Christians, we have our own version of what's good for America. When Celsus accused Christians of being bad citizens because they wouldn't fight in the military, Origen replied, "Christians do more for the safety and security of Rome by their prayers and virtuous lives than do all of Caesar's legions."
Origen went on: "Celsus also urges us to 'take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion.' But we recognise in each state the existence of another national organization founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over Churches. Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject; but we constrain those who, through excess of modesty, are not easily induced to take a public charge in the Church of God. And those who rule over us well are under the constraining influence of the great King, whom we believe to be the Son of God, God the Word. And if those who govern in the Church, and are called rulers of the divine nation—that is, the Church—rule well, they rule in accordance with the divine commands, and never suffer themselves to be led astray by worldly policy. And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God—for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right. They take charge of all—of those that are within, that they may day by day lead better lives, and of those that are without, that they may come to abound in holy words and in deeds of piety; and that, while thus worshipping God truly, and training up as many as they can in the same way, they may be filled with the word of God and the law of God, and thus be united with the Supreme God through His Son the Word, Wisdom, Truth, and Righteousness, who unites to God all who are resolved to conform their lives in all things to the law of God" (Against Celsus LXXV).
I realize this isn't canon law. But perhaps this is a better paradigm than your argument from the OT. It seems to me at least that this is continuous with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, rather than retrogressive like a reference to Daniel.
I appreciate, Doug, that you are struggling with this. I appreciate your sensitivity to the "prophetic call" we and others like us are raising all across the Western world. What I don't appreciate (or at least, what I don't understand) is your suggestion that landing a Hegelian synthesis between (in your view) "two extremes" can be what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. My suspicion is that characterizing the ante-Nicene/Anabaptist ecclesiology as an "extreme" position on a scale just betrays someone's indebtedness to a version of politics that is not Christian.
What tempts us to think that our politics can be measured against the politics of some nation-state? Well, as my wife says, "Only the sexy mamas," by which she means, "only the appeal of the confident, dominant and conservative voice of an empire."
Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but I would also object, at least as far as my crew goes, to the suggestion that what we are representing is a "reaction" to idolatry in the church. While we certainly are fed up with idolatry in the church, that doesn't make our positions reactionary. Our hope is that we are representing positions that are genuinely biblical, seriously radical (in the sense of "from the root"), and actually workable.
I apologize if I have come off sounding a bit harsh here. That is not my intention. My wife suggests that it's "just my style." She's probably right. But I also, just like you, want to take these questions seriously. The fate of the church in the coming generations may well be at stake. For that reason, I am incredibly grateful to you for being honest and raising these questions in the first place.
Peace to you.
Your friend,
Thom
...
...
I should add that I am not saying the church does not have a prophetic witness to the state. This is derived not from our investment in the state's welfare but from our discipleship--we are servants to the world, servants not in the sense that we exist to serve their agenda, but servant in the sense that we exist to expose their idolatry and call them to acknowledge the lordship of Christ.
Are you suggesting that voting is one form of our service to the state? If so, how is such an activity an extension of Jesus' renunciation of power, the paradigmatic prophetic critique of the state?
...
...
From Jacques Ellul, Jesus and Mark: From Gospel to Ideology, pp. 163-64:
-----------------
As a great diviner and interpreter of
dreams,8 Daniel has found favor with Nebuchadnezzar, but this favor has its risks: when Daniel refuses to submit to the king concerning his faith, he is thrown into the fiery furnace (power must be worshiped!). Darius throws him into the lions' den. Power is dangerous and devouring; participating in political action and reflection on behalf of the government is an undertaking that inevitably puts true faith in danger. Such participation can lead only to proclaiming the end of this power and to its destruction. We must remember that Daniel remains a prophet of doom for the different kings he serves. He announces to each one the end of his reign, the destruction of the kingdom, the death of the king, etc. Consequently, he negates power to its face, in a sense, even if he serves it temporarily.
FN8: Further, we must note that both Joseph and Daniel are sought out by government power for very ambiguous reasons: they are the king's diviners. Kings consider them as related to a mysterious power rather than to the truth. They can enlighten the ruler through magic and sorcery. In other words, we have here the seizing of God's gift and its transformation into its opposite. Political power cannot recognize the true God for what He is. It can only use Him, incidentally, for its own reinforcement. This situation offers us a remarkable view of the alliance of the Church with the power structure!
-----------------
Forward, forward, forward.
...
Hold up, hold up, hold up.
-----------------
I'm no longer principally opposed to voting.
Peace.
Post a Comment