Frank’s argument that “Government is reformed when men are first reformed” is persuasive, and I doubt that anyone could seriously disagree with it. I was all prepared to raise the issue of Acts 16 and Paul’s strategic use of his Roman citizenship, but Dr. Beckwith got there first.
So instead, I’ll raise another passage that I take to be Pauline in nature: 1 Timothy 2:1-3, where Paul writes:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I have frequently wondered whether Paul has some sort of causal relationship in mind between the ‘peaceful and quiet life’ and the fact that God desires all men to be saved (leaving aside for the moment the usual theological questions that are typically raised of this verse). It seems at first blush that there is some organic connection between the stability of the political order and the Gospel’s going forth. For all the injustices of the Romans, they also built roads like the world had never seen before.
If Paul’s vision is not political, then, it seems it exists within the context of the political and–we might go so far as to say–the political order ought be shaped in response to it. That is, I think, one of the central arguments of Oliver O’Donovan’s brilliant Desire of the Nations. While not a defense of Christendom per se, he argues that the political order is “intimately bound up in Christian mission”–that the Gospel destabilizes and temporalizes political power, thus demanding the obedience of rulers and the exercise of political authority on grounds besides power. Writes O’Donovan:
The rulers of this world have bowed before Christ’s throne. The core-idea of Christendom is therefore intimately bound up with the church’s mission. But the relationship between mission and Christian political order should not be misconstrued. It is not, as is often suggested, that Christian political order is a project of the church’s mission, either as an end in itself or as a means to the further missionary end. The church’s one project is to witness to the Kingdom of God. Christendom is response to mission, and as such a sign that God has blessed it. It is constituted not by the church’s seizing alien power, but by alien power’s becoming attentive to the church.
I might go one step further than O’Donovan, though, and say that the alien’s power attentiveness to the Church is additionally conducive to the Gospel’s spreading. At least that’s how 1 Timothy reads to me.
October 22nd, 2009 | 10:53 am | #1
Frank Turk must be stopped, or you will all be convicted anti-statist reformed baptists before the end of the year.
October 22nd, 2009 | 11:29 am | #2
Amen to Frank! :-)
Don’t feel bad, Matt. Much of what I wrote in the comboxes is cut and paste from my forthcoming book Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft, which will be published by InterVarsity Press in March 2010. You can read more about it here: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2814
October 22nd, 2009 | 11:56 am | #3
Doc Beckwith,
Oh, I don’t feel bad at all. If anything, I feel a bit vindicated. It’s always fun reading arguments I would have made, except they are (a) made by people much smarter than I and (b) expressed much more clearly than I.
Can’t wait for the book. I love that series, and I hope to review Paul Spear’s new book here in the next few weeks.
October 22nd, 2009 | 12:30 pm | #4
Thank you Matt, I think this post starts moving the conversation in the right direction.
Thanks for the O’Donovan quote, I’ve enjoyed his work on ethics, I’ll have to check this one out as well.
October 22nd, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #5
Frank, I’d love to see a developed post on your take as to how Christians should, or should not, participate in politics.
As a side note, as a fellow “reformed Baptist” my perceptions on political engagement and the mission of the Kingdom of God changed through reading other Baptists in the original.
If you read Issac Backus, Andrew Fuller and William Carey you see this clearly. If you read Backus he was anything but a supporter of the separation of church and state. Fuller and Carey were driven to launch the Baptist mission movement because they believed, in the same way Douglas Wilson does, that the gospel would have victory in this world and would transform individuals, communities and nations.
Baptists have a mixed bag history when it comes to views on the state. Not saying you have to agree with it, just saying there are other ways to be reformed Baptist than anti-statist :)
October 22nd, 2009 | 12:45 pm | #6
A true Scottsman would whack you for saying so, Caleb.
:-)
October 22nd, 2009 | 12:58 pm | #7
Maybe it’s important to clarify that I am not an anarchist. I abide by Rom 13 and Jesus command to render unto Caesar. But I think something inherent in the “render unto Caesar” rebuke Christ gives is that the people of God ought not to be political zealots.
In a world were the government was cruel, and capricious and despotic, Christ and the Apostles commanded that the believer obey them and pray for them. That’s shocking because we’re in a far less-despotic realm with far more liberty to live as we please and we want to take our Caesar into the political steel cage and see who can climb out.
In my view, and I think also in most of DW’s view, the Gospel wins. DW sees it as some kind of teleological winning like leaven taking over the loaf, which is fine I guess — but in my view, political activism is like trying to paint over rust. You can prime it and coat it and bust an elbow on it, but if you paint over rust the rust will show through.
The Gospel is not a rust-remover: it is a rust-reverser. It turns the process around, and changes people who only want to serve themnselves into people who are compelled to serve others even unto death. If we were doing that, I’ll bet we wouldn’t have to worry about the law so much.
October 22nd, 2009 | 1:34 pm | #8
Caleb,
Thanks for the kind words. It’s fun to meet another O’Donovan fan. I think Resurrection and Moral Order is one of the most masterful treatments of Christian ethics I’ve ever read. It’s had a huge influence on me (and at my blog, I did a chapter-by-chapter synopsis of the book a few years ago, if you ever want to look it up).
Also, your point about Baptist history is really interesting to me. Thanks for mentioning that.
Frank,
I agree that we ought not be political zealots, and I think that O’Donovan’s explication of ‘render unto Ceasar’ is the most interesting I’ve ever read. He basically argues that we render unto Ceasar out of indifference–it doesn’t matter, since political power has been delegitimized by the Gospel (though not, he points out) defeated.
I don’t think that anyone takes you for an anarchist, and I think we’re all on board with the Gospel winning. The question is, what does it win–and is it bad to view the civil law as creating conditions that make it more conducive for it to win. Does the Gospel also win obedience of the nations, or just of individuals? Notice, for O’Donovan the nations recognize the authority of Jesus and so their own authority is constituted around that. At one point, he argues that the state serves the Church by recognizing its own limitations–a point that I think is helpful and that could guide political activism of a certain sort.
October 22nd, 2009 | 10:13 pm | #9
[...] can bind you if you hold the key to eternal life? This last notion has implications for the ongoing discussions of Christian life in a largely secular democratic political [...]
October 22nd, 2009 | 10:15 pm | #10
[...] can bind you if you hold the key to eternal life? This last notion has implications for the ongoing discussions of Christian life in a largely secular democratic political [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact