By Darrell L. Bock and Kymberli M. Cook
[Darrell L. Bock is Senior Research Professor in New Testament Studies and Executive Director for Cultural Engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Kymberli M. Cook is Assistant Director of the Hendricks Center and a PhD student in Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.]
In this age of rabid politics, it is difficult to remember that the phenomenon of government is actually a means by which God providentially guides and cares for his creation. Government can be (and is supposed to be) a very good thing. Reality, unfortunately, has taught us that in our fallen world it can become a very bad thing. Wyatt Graham contrasts those with societal oversight as having the potential to be “God’s ministers” or “God’s monsters.”[1] At the Hendricks Center, we spent time discussing these potentials for government with Patrick Schreiner, who digs deep into the Bible and historical backgrounds to surface practical implications. We also had the privilege of sitting down with those serving in the checks and balances of the American government. We spoke with Greg Adams, a civil servant, and Kelly Shackelford, a lawyer, who both spend time thinking through religious liberty. Within these conversations, we have consistently seen three exercises for relating to any government in a godly and biblical manner. Believers must develop both a skill and strength in all three.
The Exercise Of Submission
As part of God’s eternal law, he established an order in creation. Government is a part of that order. Perhaps one of the most well-known passages supporting this idea is Romans 13:1: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (ESV). As a general rule, followers of Christ should submit to governmental authorities as an act of worship and faith in God. As part of their conversation on Christian engagement in public spaces, Patrick Schreiner, author of Political Gospel: Public Witness in a Politically Crazy World, and Associate Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Darrell Bock discuss passages involving God’s instruction on law and politics.
Schreiner: I’m not a political theology person. I’m not a political theorist. I didn’t do political science in my BA. But I have studied the biblical text, and I think the biblical text has a lot more to say about our political engagement than most people realize. Typically, when I read books on political theology, they’ll talk about three texts—Genesis 9, Mark 12, and Romans 13—paying taxes to Caesar, Paul’s statement about submitting to the human governments, and then Genesis 9, a natural theology text. And I just think there’s a lot more in the Scriptures in terms of engaging with politics and how we’re to think through politics than those three texts. I don’t deny that those texts are important, but I think there’s a lot more there. It stems from my studies of the Scriptures and then also our current cultural moment and where Christians are in terms of our political conversations.
Bock: We share a lot of the same concerns and a lot of the same background. . . . I really like the way you’re walking into this to say there are more than three texts that involve how we engage with government. I like to remind people, particularly when they park on Romans 13, that I need to ask a second question, and that is What do you do with the prophets and all that the prophets have to say about the way in which we relate corporately to one another and the responsibility of governments and . . . the challenge that the prophets give to the ethics of what is going on in society at large? Those kinds of questions . . . seem like a pretty large swath of Scripture in comparison to just Romans 13.
This isn’t so much directly related to your book, but I’m curious how you answer the question. How do you think we got here? In other words, how do you think we got to the place where our thinking about corporate structures and the way they work, and the way we think about politics, the way we think about being a citizen—those questions—got separated from the issues of discipleship?
Schreiner: There are so many things that need to be said there. I’d say a few different things just to begin. . . . I exist within evangelicalism. I know that’s a debated term whether it’s a political term, social term, or theological term, but if we could just use it more broadly. I grew up in evangelicalism. And one of the pros of the evangelical movement is it’s very much about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. And I totally believe that, and I think there’s a lot of good to that. What we miss sometimes, when we overemphasize that, is that the gospel’s a fully public message as well. And so I think one of the reasons we’ve gotten here is that people have basically put religion in the private sphere, and they don’t think it’s a public thing. They think, Well, I have religion over here; I have my belief in Jesus; I have a relationship with him; but maybe politics is a different thing. That’s one area that we can step into.
The opposite area that I identify is partisanship. So we could put it in the terms of we either privatize our faith or we make it partisan. What that means is that we combine our Christian faith with one political party. Then we think, Oh, they are advocates for the kingdom of God. So it seems like we’re falling off on two different sides here. Either we make it private or we make it partisan. And I especially look at the New Testament. The gospel message is fully political. I don’t mean partisan; I mean it’s fully political in that Jesus announced he’s the king of the kingdom. That’s a political message. And I think there is a lot of evidence within the Scriptures themselves that the terms we think of as religious terms—whether gospel (euangelion), faith (pistis), kingdom (basileia), church (ekklesia)—those are all political terms.
And as you know, in the first century, there’s no division between religion and politics. I’m not saying I don’t agree with separation of church and state in some sense, but I do think we need to return to the Scriptures and recognize that Jesus didn’t come and say, “I’m just your spiritual guru who’s going to talk about your heart.” He was forming a new society—a new society under the thumb of Rome. And so that is going to cause some challenges, and Rome’s going to look at him a little sideways and say, “What’s going on here?” Now, what’s shocking as you know, and we could get into this more, is that they all declare him innocent when he comes before the court.
I use this paradigm of Jesus, Paul, and our future. The message is subversive, but it’s also submissive at the same time. It’s subversive in that it’s forming a new reality—a new polis, a new city, where we get the word “politics” from. But at the very same time, the way that it’s subversive is by being submissive (Rom 13), and that’s not all we could say. You mentioned the prophets earlier. I like to use the line that Revelation 13 and Romans 13 are both in our Bible, and Revelation 13 seems to say the human governments stem in some sense from the dragon. Now, how we interpret Revelation 13, we can get into that. But I do think there’s this line in the Bible that the dark spiritual forces are using governing forces to spread chaos, while at the same time, Paul can say they’re God’s servants to spread order and peace. . . . That’s a paradox that we live in. . . . We have to come to the Scriptures and recognize both the subversive nature of Christianity and the submissive nature—and they both actually come together.
The first part of the paradox of government as presented in Scripture is recognizing the political nature of our faith and the expectation that such a faith will present itself in public spaces (including government). Our faith cannot be private. Nor can it be fully partisan. We must live it out and submit to whatever authorities God has placed over us. In doing this, we are subversively working to create beachheads for the full kingdom of God when it is unveiled, as well as opportunities for faith.
The Exercise Of Wisdom
The second exercise that develops the muscles of Christian discipleship is the utilization of wisdom in matters relating to civil law, which is warped and twisted by sin. This is the other half of the paradox referenced by Schreiner. As much as we see submission to government in Romans 13, we also see the fallenness in governing authorities in Revelation 13. The prophets give us examples of what it looks like to speak out against governments that do not honor the Lord. They even require actions by citizens. In light of these examples, there are times when it might be right for a believer to practice lawful resistance. An example of resistance in the American governmental system is the ability of citizens to push back on laws as they are made and being made. Kelly Shackelford, President and Chief Executive Officer of First Liberty Institute, has spent his life pushing back on the American government when it seems an individual’s religious liberty and conscience might be threatened. Darrell and Kelly discuss what an exercise of wisdom and judgment might look like in this kind of situation.
Bock: You’ve been involved in religious liberty for some time. Now, let’s talk a little bit about where the concept of religious liberty comes from, because when we look at the Constitution, of course, we’re dealing with the Bill of Rights. And I’m going to keep this real basic for people, because some people understand this and some people don’t. So, which amendment of the Bill of Rights are we dealing with here when we talk about religious liberty?
Shackelford: Both of the clauses—the first two clauses—in the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The purpose of those was the fullest and most vibrant free exercise of religion without the government establishing for us some sort of denomination or religion which therefore would take away from our full, free exercise. So the idea is: the founders wanted there to be freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. And the first two clauses of the first amendment are dedicated to protecting that very freedom—the first freedom—the freedom of religion.
Bock: And that was a unique kind of move in forming a government at the time at which it was done, wasn’t it?
Shackelford: Absolutely. And the founders wrote about it—they called it the first freedom. . . . A lot of times I’ll talk about religious freedom to audiences that maybe are not religious people. And so the natural question that comes is Should I care about this? And the answer is yes. The founders wrote on this. And the concept is: it’s the first liberty because, if you don’t have it, you won’t have any liberty. Ultimately, when you talk about freedom of religion, really it’s about the right of a person to their conscience. And if the government can violate that—and it could be your belief in not believing in God—once you’ve crossed that threshold, it’s all gone. I think a good way for people to understand it is: when totalitarianism comes in, the one thing that totalitarianism can never allow is citizens who have an allegiance to one higher than the government. So, when totalitarianism comes in, you’re going to see religious freedom as the first attack, because they’re going to say, “Wait, your allegiance is not to the government.” And you will see these types of fights. . . . And when I speak, I have a lot of people from other countries who’ve come to the United States, and they say, “I’m not religious. You don’t know how true this is. When you lose religious freedom, you lose all your freedom.” And I think that’s what the founders understood.
Bock: Michael Novak wrote a book called On Two Wings, which is a very good treatment of the influence of the Enlightenment and the influence of religious commitment in our founding. And those were the two wings. And it’s an interesting combination, because most people think the Enlightenment and religious belief work against one another.
Shackelford: Right.
Bock: But in this particular case they worked alongside one another. He makes a big point, for example, of how you have Thomas Jefferson, who isn’t exactly the most orthodox religious figure in the history of the country, and John Adams, who helped to form this government, put together this combination of rights and privileges that allow us, on the one hand, to have a government that we’re committed to, and on the other hand, to keep our freedom of conscience. So it’s a very, very foundational and important area. It was unique at the time. It was designed to protect—I think we have to be honest about this—a reaction that the founding fathers had to being under a king and having a state church. So it was a protection against the bad side of religion, if I can say it that way, that had led to many religious conflicts, bloody religious conflicts, in Europe in its history.
Shakelford’s work demonstrates that, at times, it is entirely legitimate for a believer, while submitting to the laws of the land, to exercise wisdom and judgment concerning those laws that are made. While not always present, there are sometimes opportunities within a given system, such as the American government, where certain measures of resistance against laws or enforced personal actions are warranted. Determining those instances, however, requires immense skill in applying wisdom to any given situation.
The Exercise Of Engagement
Finally, a believer must be able to develop the skill of engagement amid this tension between submission and subversion. Engagement is the territory of the discussions before a given “side” must be chosen. What might be some key actions to take as a Christian seeking to engage? Schreiner and Darrell discuss the conviction of following Jeremiah 29—believers should work for the good of the city in which they find themselves, particularly if exiled. This involves meaningful contribution in all areas of society, including involvement in government for the common good. Government should also be considered a place to serve and minister for the cause of Christ (and not just because it provides evangelism opportunities). Darrell and Greg Adams, who was the Chief Operating Officer for the State of Tennessee, 2013–2019, discuss his role in government as a calling.
Bock: Would you say that the experience that you had [in IBM leadership] would be the equivalent of receiving a call? Like a pastor would say, “I’m called to ministry,” [you would say,] “I was called to serve God in the business space, in the government space.”
Adams: I would say that. And it was just good for me to have this struggle with the sacred and the secular, to force me, and God bringing people in my life to think through that. And then just to see the natural fruit . . . to see how God would bring needy people into my life, and just give me the opportunity to be a part of his work.
Bock: So what I’m hearing you say is if you’ll just let the door be open and be sensitive to what’s going on around you, life serves the opportunity to serve.
Adams: Oh, and the move to government was another one where, I mean, it was hard for Jeannine and me to really pray through this, because we’d say, “Wait a second. Gosh, we’ve been all around the world.” It’s hard packing up ten times, and we’re back in Atlanta, her hometown, and I think she feels like, Ha, God. We did this.
Bock: Finally. [Laughter]
Adams: But as we kept praying and talking about it, and saying, “Gosh, wait a second. Here’s someone that we know is a committed believer and is genuine and real, and he’s saying, ‘Hey, will you come help us? I think we can make a difference.’ ‘‘” And so we said, “Is God not leading us here?” Because we’re the first every night to watch the news and go, “What are these knuckleheads in Washington, or Nashville, or you know—” And then we said, “Wait. Here’s a chance for us.”
Bock: Right. It’s not an easy job. The one thing you learn working with civil servants is the intense pressures that they’re under in what they’re trying to do. And sometimes they start out well-intentioned, and then it just gets hard.
Adams: Well, I had two cell phones, and one stayed on all the time. So I was the first call into the governor’s office. Because you know, we have tornadoes and floods and stabbings in prisons, and we have to take children out of homes—
Bock: And they don’t sign up when they show up.
Adams: No one got killed at IBM in my job selling computer hardware and software and services. All of a sudden I’m in an environment where we’re talking about people’s lives. And again, seeing God working and that in the marketplace God’s economy is so different. I was just such an individual growing up, thinking that “big is better.” And like, I gotta be doing something that five hundred people are coming to Christ, versus maybe just one life that I’m touching, according to what God has called me to do.
Meaningful contribution to “the city” does not solely include government service. It can also mean calling on governmental entities to be good stewards of God’s call on them. Schreiner adds,
Schreiner: Christians uniquely can call nations and states to account for not fulfilling their God-ordained means and goals to what they’re supposed to do. We can critique states in that way because we know who has given them their authority and what they’re called to do. Actually, in one sense, I don’t think that’s a distinctly Christian move. I think other people can do that who are non-Christian. They can say, “You’re not providing order and justice,” as well. But Christians know that authority has been given to the state by God himself. He is their ultimate authority, and they’re here for a short time.
Finally, the exercise of engagement also relies on an accurate understanding of the Christian’s eschatological hope. This is found in the full coming of the kingdom of God and his dwelling with humankind (Rev 20–21). However much we are able to do for “the city,” we must simultaneously recognize that our hope is not in human governors or the governments we work to form. Our hope is in the Lord and anticipates the time of full consummation when we are able to live unhindered under the only righteous king. Concerning this hope Darrell points out,
Bock: [There are] two other corollaries that I think are important, one of which we’ve mentioned, which is in the end God will establish justice. The proper recompense for actions will take place. People who make bad decisions will face the consequences of those decisions apart from the relief that the gospel does give. That’s one element of it. I think the other element is reminding ourselves that Jesus spent the entire second half of his discipleship program with the twelve and with the disciples saying, “You follow me. The world’s going to push back. You shouldn’t expect to be treated well.”
In fact, 1 Peter 3 and the very famous passage where it says we’re supposed to be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is within us begins by saying, “Do good.” The next thing is, “But if you should be slandered for doing good you are blessed.” When you think about the way in which discipleship is counterculture, it is also in one sense counterpolitical in the worldly sense of that term, and so we should expect pushback. I mean, we can try to portray ourselves as the victims but there’s another sense in which we go, I shouldn’t be surprised that I’m a victim here because of the pushback that Jesus said I would get for following him.
While we should expect this pushback and recognize the reality that full justice will only be established in the coming kingdom, this should in no way short-circuit our “workout regimen” in order to relate well to governing authorities. Believers must develop submission, wisdom, and engagement muscles. Without them, we miss out on an incredible opportunity to partner with the provision of the Lord and speak into the administration of his creation.
Notes
- Wyatt Graham, “How Should Christians Think about Unjust Governments,” Wyatt Graham: Faith, Books, Culture (blog), April 17, 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment