Category: Christian’s Relationship to Government

What Jesus Talked About the Most

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life, The Authority of God

Many people assume the goal of Christianity is to go to heaven. However, throughout the New Testament, not a single sermon concludes with “if you follow these steps, you can go to heaven when you die.” Far more often we find sermons proclaiming Jesus’s status as the anointed King (Christ) and Ruler (Lord). For example, in Peter’s Pentecost sermon, he declared “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). Similarly, Peter preached to Cornelius’s household about “Jesus Christ,” who is “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36). Even in Roman custody, Paul tried to convince others about Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Acts 28:23). Jesus’s kingship and lordship are at the very heart of the gospel (Romans 1:1-4).

The New Testament mentions the “kingdom” over 150 times, more than twice the frequency of the word “church.” While it is certainly worthwhile to study what the New Testament teaches about the church and heaven, it is unfortunate that the kingdom does not receive greater emphasis in modern Christianity. This was not the case with Jesus, who talked more about the kingdom than any other subject.

Jesus Preached the Kingdom

The gospel authors consistently emphasize the Kingdom as the main emphasis of Jesus’s teaching. For example, Mark 1:15 summarizes Jesus’s preaching throughout Galilee in one sentence: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Matthew 4:23 describes him as teaching in synagogues and “proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom.” Similarly, Matthew 9:35 and Luke 8:1 also highlight the kingdom as subject of Jesus’s message while healing diseases and afflictions. These passages all underscore the kingdom as the central focus of Jesus’s teachings.

When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he taught them to pray about the kingdom (Mt. 6:9-13). Jesus instructed them to preach about the kingdom (Lk. 9:2; 10:9). His miracles, such as healing the sick and casting out demons, demonstrated that the kingdom was breaking into the world (Lk. 11:20). Jesus continually taught about how to enter the kingdom (Mt. 5:3; 6:33; Mk. 10:15; Lk. 13:3; 14:15-24; Jn. 3:3-5). Most of Jesus’s parables were used to explain the nature of his kingdom (Mt. 13:24, 31, 33, 34, 44, 45, 47; 18:23; 20:1, 22:2; 25:1; Mk. 4:26, 30, Lk. 13:18, 20).

Why did Jesus spend so much time talking about the kingdom? Because Jesus understood this to be the reason he was sent.

He said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”

Luke 4:43

What Is the Kingdom?

To put it simply, the Kingdom of God is the place where God reigns supreme and His will is done (Mt. 6:9-10). It is the “dome” (or “dominion”) over which God reigns as King.

Everyone in the first century knew what a “kingdom” was, but today we tend to use words like “nations,” “countries,” or “states” to describe political dominions. While modern rulers don’t typically use the title “King,” democratically elected rulers continue to hold similar authority to govern their respective states. Despite differences in how today’s rulers ascend to power, the concept of kingdoms and dominions with authoritative rulers persists in today’s world.

God also has a “kingdom” where choices are made in harmony with His will. Jesus, who is sinless, loving, and obedient, is the perfect example of what it looks like for God to reign over a person’s life completely. To enter his kingdom, one must be born again of water and Spirit, surrendering their life to continual imitation of Christ (John 3:3, Rom. 6:1-14; Phil. 2:5-8).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “Your kingdom come, Your will be done” (Mt. 6:10). God’s kingdom is where God’s will is done.

When is the Kingdom?

The Kingdom of God was not preached as a distant future event but as something imminent. John the Baptist and Jesus each preached that the Kingdom was “at hand” (Mt. 3:1-2; Mk. 1:15).

Similarly, in Luke 11:20, Jesus said,

But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Jesus even told his disciples that some of them would witness the coming of the kingdom in their lifetime.

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 16:28

For this reason, it should be no surprise when Paul and John also speak as if Christians were already in God’s kingdom at the time of their writing (Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9). While there is a sense in which we still wait for the ultimate appearing of his kingdom, when the kingdom is delivered to the Father, when death is no more and every tear is wiped away (1 Cor 15:24, 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 21:3-4), the kingdom of God is not merely a future hope for eternal life. It is a real kingdom presently here on earth.

If God’s kingdom is here, where is it?

Where is the Kingdom?

When questioned by the Pharisees about the arrival of God’s kingdom, he answered them:

The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There!” for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.

Luke 17:20-21

Unlike earthly kingdoms with defined borders, Jesus’s kingdom exists anywhere things are done God’s way. Most of the world, filled with filled with war, violence, coercion, poverty, child abuse, sex trafficking, theft, injustice, hatred, and more, stands in opposition to God’s kingdom. But there are places where God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

Jesus clarified to Pilate that while his kingdom is not of earthly origin, and is not sustained by earthly means, it is nonetheless a real kingdom, where Jesus reigns as a real King.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I may not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not of this world.”

Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world – to bear witness to the truth – everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”

John 18:36-37

Jesus’s kingdom is as real as any other kingdom, and it is on earth now. If you want to know where God’s kingdom is, look to the places where people have reborn by both water and Spirit, and are heeding Jesus’s voice.

Who is the Kingdom?

Before identifying who is in the Kingdom of Christ today, it is helpful to differentiate this kingdom from the kingdom of God as it is otherwise described in the Bible. All that God did prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ was done with that purpose in mind.

In the sense of rightful authority, all creation belongs to the Creator. But in the garden of Eden, something pivotal happened. Adam and Eve, rather than obeying the voice of their Creator, obeyed the voice of the Serpent. In so doing, they ceded authority to him who would eventually lead the whole world astray. In this sense, Satan too has a kingdom. But his kingdom only exists because he has usurped authority which did not at any point rightfully belong to him.

Since that time, two kingdoms have existed side by side, God’s and Satan’s, each bidding for mankind’s allegiance. After rescuing Abraham’s family from slavery in Egypt, God ruled over His kingdom of Israel through the law of Moses. Even as God anticipated a king (Deut. 17:14-20), He warned against the attitudes and actions which would defy his ultimate authority. Unfortunately, Israel rejected God’s reign, choosing instead to imitate surrounding earthly kingdoms (1 Sam. 8), leading to Israel’s decay and punishment (Hosea 13:11).

It was during this period of decay when the prophets announced that God would establish a new eternal Kingdom, where God would reign through His anointed King (Is. 9:6-7). Daniel too spoke of a Kingdom that was coming that would cut in pieces and destroy other earthly kingdoms (Dan. 2:36-45; 7:13-14).

Jesus was and is the fulfillment of this hope for a Kingdom. Paul refers to those who “boast in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ” as the new “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:14-16), and Peter refers to Christ’s church as “a holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9). That’s because Jesus has made them to be, “A kingdom of priests for God” (Rev. 5:10).

What Kingdom Are You a Citizen Of?

Salvation is much more than simply going to heaven. It includes rescue from the political forces and evil structures of this world which have aligned themselves with Satan (Col. 1:13; 2:15; 1 Jn. 3:8). The fact that Jesus established a Kingdom means that people are now forced to choose which Kingdom they pledge their allegiance to. We may be “born” into an earthly nation, but we are “born again” into God’s Kingdom.

It is important to note that the Bible rejects the concept of a “dual citizenship,” emphasizing that Christians live as foreigners, strangers, or exiles in their earthly nations. Our citizenship is not on earth, but in heaven (Phil. 3:20). The faithful are those who acknowledge themselves as strangers and exiles on the earth (Heb. 11:13). Christians are exiles, and as such, they are to abstain from the passions of the flesh which characterize the world (1 Pet. 1:17; 2:11).

The Kingdom of God is here now. This truth lies at the very core of the gospel which Jesus proclaimed, and it should be central to our message as well.

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.

Mark 1:15

“The Church of God Among the Nations” by David Lipscomb

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Restoration

The Gospel Advocate; February 27, 1866

Has the separation that was established and perpetuated by God through a period of four thousand years, between God’s institutions and subjects and the human institutions of earth and their subjects, been obliterated in the dispensation for which all dispensations were given—the dispensation or reign of the Lord Jesus Christ? It is a universally received idea, we believe, among the students of the Bible, that there is not a lesson taught in God’s dealings with his people under His fleshly dispensations, not a principle vindicated, that was not intended more, for effect upon the perfect, spiritual kingdom of the “fullness of the times” than for immediate effect upon the temporal kingdoms to which they were given. The prime object of all those lessons of separation was to have their permanent effect upon the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ. Is God less jealous of the sanctity of his eternal kingdom, established and reigned over through his anointed Son, than he was for the mere preparatory ones established and ruled through his frail, weak, sinning, human subjects? Our work, certainly, is sufficient, after having shown this separation, unless authority can be produced for uniting that which God hath sundered. But we again call attention to the positive teachings of the Holy Spirit directly upon the relationship they sustain toward each other.

For the Lord hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with all flesh; he will give them that are wicked to the sword, saith the Lord.

Jeremiah 25:31

In which the fact is presented of a “controversy between God and the nations.” This controversy is undoubtedly with reference to the question: Who shall govern the world? Who shall rule man? God or the governments of the world? The result of this controversy is, “he will give the wicked,” those who maintain the government of the nations instead of the government of God, “to the sword.”

We next call attention to the teachings of the Holy Spirit through Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar. In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream or vision, the workings of human governments, their history and destiny, and the connection of the Church of Christ with them is plainly foretold by God and revealed by Daniel. In the vision of the image of the man, with a golden head, a chest of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron and feet of iron and clay, is presented the four kingdoms of earth, that were to attain to universal sway, and rule the world. The head of gold typifies the kingdom of Babylon, of which Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful and illustrious ruler. It, with all its power, must be destroyed and its golden treasures and exalted honors become the prey of its despoilers. It is succeeded by the Medo-Persian empire, that rises on the ruins of its predecessor, attains universal sway, subjugates the world, and in turn, itself is broken and destroyed, to be succeeded by the third or brazen empire of Greece, whose mighty, conquering head, weeps that other worlds are not within the reach of its destroying and bloody sword. But with all of its mighty power it must soon be stripped of its powers and honors, a lifeless corpse, weltering in the blood of its own children. For the Roman empire strong as iron which “breaketh in pieces and consumeth all things,” commences its work of ruin and destruction. With it the vision of earthly, human empire closes. It indeed is broken in the pride of its strength and the glory of its power.

What human government, then, will be able to stand? No other human government can ever attain to universal dominion. All the governments of earth, to-day, are but the broken, discordant fragments of this once mighty empire. In their iron strength they linger out a lengthened existence even when dissevered, oftentimes exhibiting a mighty prowess that bespeaks them true to their origin, but by continual conflicts and ever worrying strife, are wearing themselves away, wasting their strength and making room for the kingdom which the “God of Heaven set up in the days of these kings.” Their mission, from the prophetic history, was to destroy one another, and under the rulings of God’s providence to give those who upheld them “to the sword.” Their destiny was to be destroyed. The end of the vision was:

A stone cut out of the mountain without hands, smote the image upon the feet, that were of iron and clay, and broke it to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff or the summer’s threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them, and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Daniel 2:34-35

The interpretation of this was, that:

In the days of these kings [the Roman] shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

Daniel 2:44

Here again the mission of these nations is distinctly set forth and their connection with the Church of Christ well defined. They were to be destroyed by the working of this kingdom, which the God of Heaven should set up, and the broken fragments as the chaff of the summer’s threshing floor to be blown away, so that no place for them should be found.

In contrast with the lesson that has been taught with reference to the destruction of the earthly kingdoms, the Kingdom of Heaven, “shall never be destroyed.” “‘The kingdom shall not be left to other people.” Another point of contrast. It has been taught that these earthly kingdoms, with all their riches and honors, should become the prey of their despoilers. Not a kingdom or government of earthly mold but in its overthrow or conquest, has been, with all its powers, possessions and honors, regarded and appropriated as the prey of the despoilers. But not so with the God-ordained kingdom. It was not to be left as a prey to other people, but with all its riches, honors, and priceless treasures, it is to be the perpetual heritage of its own meek and lowly children. No despoiler’s hand can deprive them or their rightful heritage in this kingdom, for God, its founder, is the guardian and protector of all its possessions. But the true omission of the Kingdom of God, with reference to the earthly kingdoms, is expressed in the next clause. “But it shall break in pieces and consume all these,” Its mission then, as distinctly set forth in this prophecy, is to break in pieces, consume and destroy all the kingdoms of earth. A spirit of perpetual antagonism is here developed, between God’s Kingdom and every form of human government. “God has a controversy with the nations.” An irrepressible conflict rages between the Government of God and all the human institutions of earth, which can only cease by the complete triumph of the one and the utter annihilation of the other. God will and can accept no doubtful fealty—no divided allegiance. He reserved to Himself the right to govern man. “To Him every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess.”

The object of God then in establishing his Church or Government was to destroy all the governments and institutions of man, and through his Church, and only through it, rule and control the world. The church’s relationship to the world-powers and institutions of man must be in harmony with this—its chiefest mission. It cannot be one of alliance with and support to any of these institutions. It cannot, at one and the same time, both uphold and destroy an institution. Its first mission is to destroy all authority and power, and rule and bring the world in subjection to its great King. It is only to be remembered in this contest that the “weapons of its warfare are not carnal, but mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds.” The little stone cut out of the mountain without hands was to fill the whole earth, so that no pace could be found for the image or any part of it. The Kingdom of Heaven will destroy all these earthly kingdoms and so engross the feelings, affections, time and labors of the denizens of earth, that no room or place will be found for the service of the earthly kingdoms. They are perishing. “It shall stand forever.”

The obligations and duties of the members of the Church of Christ, can in no manner conflict with this prime work and mission of the church itself. They cannot uphold what it must destroy. In doing this they war against the church, for it is through its members that the church accomplishes her work. If we thwart the workings of God’s church, we fight against God himself. But says one, “This antagonism was predicated only with reference to the kingdoms then in existence, not with reference to those which should afterwards arise.” The four kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision are the only human kingdoms that have ever attained to universal sway. They are placed in contrast with the fifth universal kingdom—the Church of God. Evidently these strongest of all earthly kingdoms are made choice of as embracing and typifying all the institutions of human mold in their principles, workings and destiny. We doubt whether there has been brought into existence a single form or principle of government that did not find its first development and application in one of these four universal kingdoms. Indeed all the governments of earth are but the fragments and off-shoots or this last empire. What was true of the nature and destiny of this as a whole, is equally true of each of its different, dissevered parts. It is noteworthy that no two of these universal empires could exist at once in their fully developed power. As the one arose the other gradually decayed, wore away, disappeared and made room for its successor. Since the establishment of the Church of Christ, no human institution has ever made even a respectable effort to attain to universal dominion. The tendency has been to weaken the bonds that bind nations together, to disintegrate and separate. The attrition and friction of perpetual conflict and war will continue to weaken and wear out their strength and vigor, so that as the Church of Christ advances they will vanish away, and when it shall have accomplished its perfect work and attained to its full proportions, they will have been entirely destroyed. So that man owing allegiance only to God’s government, will render no divided service. His Kingdom will fill the whole earth. God will rule in and through it, and thus be all and in all.

But the prophecies of Daniel are even yet more replete with instruction upon these subjects. The dealings of these empires with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and their deliverance from the furnace, the trials of Daniel, and the closing of the Lion’s mouth, the banishing of Nebuchadnezzar from the throne, his seven years of beastly life, and the final complete destruction at once of his kingdom and all were intended to teach one clear, specific truth, that all these human kingdoms were in their very nature opposed to the rule and dominion of God, but that their highest exaltation wrought their deepest humiliation, with all their might they must come to naught. The very divisions that were to take place in this mighty iron empire—the last and strongest of earth, under the types of the heads and horns, are pointed out, their nature and work designated and the destruction of each one plainly foretold. The disposition of those was, to “speak great words against the Most High; to wear out the Saints of the Most High; to think to change times and laws;” but the end, notwithstanding, for a time this power was to be granted to them, was to be “the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end” or to a complete destruction.

And the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heavens shall be given to the people of the Saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Daniel 7:27

“The Old Testament Kings and God’s Justice” by David Lipscomb

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life, Restoration

The Gospel Advocate; February 20, 1866

In our investigations we have found that God, at all times, kept a wide gulf of separation between his Jewish kingdom and subjects, and the world-institutions by which they were surrounded. No alliances—no af­filiations—no courtesies as equals with the man-governments or their subjects, were never engaged in without receiving a signal mark of God’s displeasure. May his subjects not have adopted some government of their own, and have harmonized it in spirit with his laws, and have thus received his approbation? In the beginning, as we have found, God gave the law, perfect and complete, in the most minute particulars. He left no room for human legislation—for the exercise of human discretion.

The law was, ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes… Whatsoever things I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it.

Deuteronomy 12:8, 32

Yet we find in later ages a changed govern­ment, altered institutions among the Jews. How did these changes come about?

It came to pass when Samuel was old, he made his sons judges in Israel. His sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes and perverted judgment. Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us, like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said give us a king to judge us: and Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, “Hearken unto the voice of the people, in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”

1 Samuel 8:1

He tells them the consequences of this course. But still ordains they shall have a government of their own to punish them for their folly in becoming dissatisfied with God’s government and desiring a human one. If the Jews would ever have been justified in interpolating human laws and human expedients into the Divine government, it certainly was when those institutions of God were perverted to base and unlawful pur­poses, and his officers failed to do their duties. We see that the desire of a man-government even then amounted to a rejection of God as their king and ruler.

The introduction of this human polity was the main cause of Israel’s many sins and rebellions in her history, of the long bloody family feuds between Israel and Judah, brought upon her, her sorrows and woes, her sad overthrow and long and cruel dispersions as fugitives and outcasts among the nations of the earth. This king, as their head, was the chief cause of turning them from the law of God. We find Saul, David, Solomon, Hezekiah all approved of God in their private walk, so elated with pride at their wonderful exaltation, that they violated God’s law themselves and led their subjects into sin.

If the best among these kings caused their subjects to sin, and weaned their affections from God, divided their allegiance, diverted their sense of responsibility from the law of God to the law of the king, what must have been the fatal effects of her more corrupt and wicked princes. We find them continually leading them away from God’s law into sin. At their return from captivity in Babylon, under Ezra and Nehemiah, it was said in Ezra 9:2, “The band of the princes and rulers have been chief in this trespass,” that had brought them into captivity. It was Hezekiah’s forgetfulness of God’s law in his anxiety to be courteous and friendly with the King of Babylon, that pro­duced the second captivity. Hosea speaking of this same rejection of God and choosing an earthly king, says:

O Israel, thou hast des­troyed thyself; but in me is thy help. I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all the cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes. I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath.

Hosea 13:9

Your dissatisfaction with my appointments as I gave them was your ruin. To punish you for this, I gave you a king who oppressed you, who involved you in difficulties, brought upon you war, trouble, famine, and slaughter, but when under this punishment, you failed to humble yourself and repent, but waxed worse and worse in your sin and rebellion, in my wrath I took from you your king and left you deso­late, without either a Divine or human head, a prey to all your enemies, to be scattered over the face of the earth, a by-word and a hissing among all the nations, as a perpetual warning to all families, kindred, tribes and tongues, of the folly and sin of becoming dissatisfied with Heaven’s appointments.

God, to some extent at least, recognizes this earthly king as a rival of himself, and indicates the impossibility of man’s having both, a Heavenly and an earthly king. He clearly indicates that the Jew could not have another king, and at the same time be regarded as the subjects of Heaven. We find that the Jew was prohibited of God from either mak­ing alliances with human governments formed by nations not of God’s people, or of adopting into the government he had made for them, institutions of their own devising. He was God, and He their only King, ruler, law-maker—they could have none other. To have another was to reject God.

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it. Thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Deuteronomy 12:32

We thus find that God kept his subjects aloof from all connection with the world, or human governments. He considered his alliances with these institutions as adulteries in his espoused wife. In Ezekiel 23, under the type of the two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah, in their whoredoms, he represents Judah and Israel in their alliances with the world-governments. In their punishment by their lovers he typifies their punishment inflicted by those nations with whom they formed alliances.

But in process of time this nation of God is so corrupted by these earthly, human institutions and alliances, that God will no longer forbear with them. He abolishes this national institution, and in its place estab­lishes his universal and eternal spiritual kingdom. “What relationship does this new and eternal kingdom sustain to the world-institutions by which it is surrounded and with which it comes in contact?” is the ques­tion of prime importance in our investigation, and one which, in importance to the well being of the church is not transcended by any known to the Christian world. The Jewish dispensation was the type of the Chris­tian kingdom. The Christian kingdom or church superseded the Jewish and occupied the same position with reference both to God and the world that refused submission to Him, that the Jewish did.

Paul in his letter to his Roman brethren, says the Jews, through unbelief, were broken off, and the Gentiles, through faith, were grafted in. Without determining what is the special position from which the Jews was broken or cast, and into which the Gentile was grafted, it suffices our present purpose to note that just the position with reference to God and the world, from which the unbelieving Jew was broken, the believing Gentile was grafted in. The Jewish institution was the type of the spiritual, teaching through God’s dealings with it, how He would deal with the church, this could not be so unless they occupied the same relationship to God and the world. God’s dealing with the Jew in one relationship, could not teach us how he would deal with the Christian in a dissimilar one. The treatment of the out­ward nations by the Jews could be no lesson to us as to how we should act towards the unbelieving unless we occupied a like position with reference to them.

These things being so, and God having, through a period of four thousand years, kept a deep and wide gulf of separation between his people, his nation, his kingdom and the human kingdoms of earth with their subjects, having, under every possible form and on every occasion, besought and warned his children against such associations or affiliations; against alliances, individual or national; against relying upon the human institutions for aid or help in any of their difficulties, having shown that the help of the human institutions was weakness, confusion and ruin to them—in a word, God having separated them in every possible manner, and on every possible occasion, he did it all, not for them, but to teach us that Christians must be a separate and distinct people.

With all these teachings, through so long a period, so repeatedly, emphatically and distinctly set forth, it certainly is true, that without some positive net or declaration of God connecting or uniting them, the government of God with its subjects, must forever remain separated from the world-institu­tions with their subjects, with no alliance or affiliation, no participation of the one in the affairs of the other. Upon him that would connect them, the responsibility of showing when and how God united them, and what that union is, certainly devolves. We shall, in our next, examine the Scriptures to see if they have been so united.

Christianity and Economics, Part 10: Were the First Christians Socialists?

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Economics

Click here to read other articles in the Christianity and Economics series.

There are numerous economic problems with socialism, as was argued in part 9 of this series. Because of the incentive problem, the knowledge problem, and the economic calculation problem, socialism will always fail to live up to it’s promise to provide a more abundant life.

But some will defend socialism or socialistic economic policies because of Christian ethics. Advocates for socialism are often driven by attitudes of goodness, generosity, a willingness to share, gentleness, and compassion. Since Jesus taught his disciples to act charitably towards the poor and oppressed, it is argued that Christians should advocate for socialist economic policies. Even if an economic case were made to show that socialism fails to increase wealth, Christians must be willing to sacrifice wealth for the sake of others. After all, “Man shall not live by bread alone” (Deut. 8:3; Mt. 4:4).

Two passages are often pointed to as a scriptural foundation for socialism, both of which describe the early church in Jerusalem.

And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts.

Acts 2:44-45

Two chapters later we read of what appears to be a communal pooling and sharing of resources in the early church.

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 4:32-37

The Ethical Problem with Socialism

The primary ethical problem with socialism is that it violates God’s prohibitions against theft. As was discussed in detail in Part 5, the commandment, “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:11) means that people do not have the right to take other people’s property.

What’s more, the Bible teaches that rulers are not free to establish their own standards of right and wrong. They are bound by the same moral laws as everyone else. Kings are expected to act justly. This means they cannot exact gifts or tributes.

By justice a king builds up the land,
but he who exacts gifts tears it down.

Proverbs 29:4

Jeremiah emphasized the moral obligation of rulers to act justly. Their position of authority in no way permitted them to steal or murder.

Thus says the LORD: “Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.”

Jeremiah 22:3

Psalm 2 warns kings not to cast off God’s authority over their lives, but rather to submit to God’s anointed King.

Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all those who take refuge in him.

Psalm 2:12

If is for this reason that kings are not permitted to commit murder or theft.

One example that illustrates this truth is the account of King Ahab, the wicked king of Israel. Ahab committed both theft and murder, specifically in the case of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21). When Ahab desired Naboth’s vineyard and offered to buy it, Naboth refused. Ahab’s wife, Jezebel, then orchestrated a false accusation against Naboth resulting in his stoning. As soon as Ahab learned of Naboth’s death, he immediately claimed the vineyard as his own. In response, God, through the prophet Elijah, condemned Ahab for his actions.

I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of the LORD. Behold, I will bring disaster upon you. I will utterly burn you up, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel.

1 Kings 21:20b-21

This account serves as a clear reminder that rulers are accountable to God for their actions and are expected to abide by the same moral laws as every other human being. It is for this reason that socialism is not an option for the Christian. The prohibition against theft disallows for any sort of state-mandated socialism. Since people are not permitted to take the property of others, the state has not moral right to collectivize other people’s property.

The Voluntary Nature of Christianity

What then should we make of the two passages from Acts previously quoted? Clearly, those early Christians were engaged in the voluntary sharing of their possessions. Their property was not confiscated by either the governing authorities or the church leaders.

The text is clear that Ananias and Sapphira were not punished for owning property which they refused to contribute to the church community. They were struck down for lying about it. Peter even points our that they did not have to lie, because it was their property to start with. It could have remained unsold if they had chosen.

While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? After it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it then that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God. – Acts 5:4

Acts 5:4

The ethical problem with socialism does not lie in the distribution of goods, but in the forcible redistribution of goods. The state is not a god, capable of distributing goods it creates out of nothing. It must first seize ownership of land, labor, and/or goods from others. The state cannot give to one person what it does not first take from someone else.

We must not confuse sharing and generosity with socialism or socialistic policies. Sharing is voluntary. Socialism is not. Sharing expresses love. Socialism does not. Sharing is self-sacrificial. Socialism sacrifices others against their will. Sharing is Christ-like. Socialism is not.

Although the early church is a wonderful example of sharing, it offers no justification for socialism or socialistic practices. Regardless of the motives of those who push for socialistic reforms, socialism violates the economic laws which God built into creation, and it is thus doomed to result in waste, poverty, and strife (Part 9). Although socialism can sometimes help some people, it can only do so by taking from others. For this reason, socialism is an ethical evil which should find no support from those who honor God’s law.

The Real Problem With Christian Nationalism

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government

Bad arguments for correct positions often do more harm than good arguments for incorrect positions. This certainly seems to be the case with many of the popular criticisms against Christian nationalism. It’s not uncommon to read that Christian nationalism is wrong because “it suppresses minorities” or because “it is racist” or because it motivates political violence or “insurrection.”

The problem with focusing only on the most unreasonable extremes is that it leaves the door open for Christians to adopt a more reasonable and balanced version of Christian nationalism. Many Christian nationalists simply believe that their government should look out for the best interest of its citizens, and the best way to do that is by encouraging their government to uphold godly values. They don’t try to suppress minorities, enforce Christianity by the force of law, and would never “storm the capital”. Since many of the popular attacks don’t accurately depict the most common forms of Christian nationalism, it’s no wonder why many find those attacks unconvincing.

Christian nationalism is wrong, but not for the reasons many popular arguments would have you believe. The real problem with Christian nationalism is that it misses the fundamental distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world.

Before accepting Christian nationalism in any form whatsoever, I encourage you to carefully consider the following passages.

1 Samuel 8:1-22

Although God originally formed his people as the unique nation of Israel, they were different from other nations in that they had no king other than God himself. Eventually, the Israelites grew tired of being different and so they asked for a king “like the nations” (8:5). Why did Israel want a king? Because they wanted someone to fight their battles for them (8:20).

The problem with Israel’s nationalism was that of trust. Israel wanted a human ruler because they no longer trusted in God to continue to fight their battles. That’s why God viewed Israel’s request as a rejection of his own kingship (8:7). Ultimately, God gave them their request. Over the next several centuries, Israel’s nationalism led to continual political conflicts, failed alliances, and ultimately to exile.

This passage reveals something very important about how God views the nationalistic desire for governing authorities to fight our battles. While this passage makes it clear that God is the head of all rule and authority (cf. Col. 2:10), and he institutes them for his purposes (cf. Rom. 13:1), he does so only as a concession to humans who cannot trust in him to fight their battles for them. Since humans insist on having governments, God uses them as ministers to accomplish his purposes (Rom. 13:1-5). But this does not mean that God approves of them. Often times God used wicked nations (such as Assyria or Babylon) as his ministers to punish Israel, only to turn around and punish them for their evil (e.g. Is. 10:5-15). Governments are under the influence of Satan (Lk. 4:5-7), but nevertheless, when people turn to earthly rulers, God permits them to have their way and uses those governments to accomplish his purposes.

Jesus, on the other hand, rejected the devil’s offer to take control of the kingdoms of the world (Mt. 4:8-10), refused to use his power to secure political power, and ran away from those who tried to make him a king (Jn. 6:15). Jesus came to destroy Israel’s nationalism by breaking down the wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph. 2:11-18).

Psalm 33:16-17

The king is not saved by his great army;
a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.
The war horse is a false hope for salvation,
and by its great might it cannot rescue.

Even after God allowed Israel to have a king, he still opposed their nationalism. He stressed that the security and success of his people was not to be found in the king, but in God himself.

When David wrote “Blessed in the nation whose God is the Lord” (Ps. 33:12), he did so in the context of opposing Israel’s nationalism (which ironically is nearly the opposite of how many Christian nationalist will use the verse today.) David was saying that people are blessed when they trust in God to be their Lord as opposed to turning to earthly rulers (33:10-11).

Isaiah 40:15-17

Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket,
and are accounted as the dust on the scales;
behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust…
All the nations are as nothing before him,
they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

Although this passage doesn’t necessarily forbid Christian nationalism, it should greatly reduce the temptation by reminding us of the greatness of the Lord’s sovereignty in comparison to the meaningless nations. When people believe that the nations hold supreme influence on the course of the world, it is understandable why they would place a good deal of importance on influencing those nations for good. But for those whose eyes are fixed on the Lord there is continual peace, for they know that regardless of what unfolds in politics, whether good or bad, the Lord will use the authorities as his ministers to accomplish his good purposes (Rom. 13:1-5).

Matthew 20:25-28

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

The quest for ruling power characterizes the world, but it must not characterize Jesus’ disciples. Christian nationalism, even in its very best and most reasonable form, is ultimately about influencing earthly powers to govern and rule in a particular way. Christians should have no part in wielding this kind of power.

John 18:36-37

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not of this world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world – to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”

When Jesus announced “My kingdom is not of this world,” Pilate then interpreted his words like many do today, as if Jesus was only speaking figuratively. He asked “So are you a king?” But Jesus, with no hint of confusion, weakness, or compromise responded, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born.”

Apparently, the idea of being a king and establishing a real kingdom was a big deal to Jesus. What’s more, this kingdom is primarily distinguished from the kingdom of the world in that its citizens do not fight in the same way citizens of earthly kingdoms fight.

Strangers and Foreigners

Most Christians believe in a two-kingdom concept in some form or another. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 22:15-22. The Pharisees in this passage tried to trap Jesus by asking him about the matter of paying taxes to Caesar. It is here that Jesus replied, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Most any Christian will acknowledge that there is a distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, although they will sometimes disagree where that line of distinction is drawn. But the early Christians drew that line with a decisive stroke.

Peter spoke to Christians as if they did not belong to the earthly kingdoms in which they lived.

And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourself with fear through the time of your exile.

1 Peter 1:17

Peter would later refer to them as “sojourners and exiles” (2:11).

The book of Hebrews likewise encouraged Christians to follow the examples of those who by faith “acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.” (Heb. 11:13). Paul held to the same ideas as can be seen in the following passage.

2 Timothy 2:3-4

Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian disputes, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.

Paul told Timothy that a Christian should view themselves as a loyal soldier in the Lord’s army, not distracted by concerns outside of his domain. He reminded Timothy that a soldier does not have the time, nor the right, to involve himself in the affairs of the country in which he finds himself. Why? Because his relationship to that county is that of a foreigner. Christian nationalism is no more appropriate for a Christian than German nationalism would be for an American soldier stationed in Germany.

Nationalism, in it’s most basic and defendable form, suggest that nationalism is reasonable because citizens are right to concern themselves with the affairs of their own country before concerning themselves with globalist affairs of foreign nations. Yet it is this very logic which renders Christian nationalism unreasonable since Christians are citizens of a different kingdom.

Christian Nationalism is Backsliding

Other scriptures could certainly be added to this list, but the point should be clear. Christianity isn’t merely non-nationalistic. It is anti-nationalistic. The early Christians didn’t merely fail to transform Rome into a Christian nation, they viewed themselves as strangers and exiles living in a foreign country. The Bible doesn’t merely fail to support Christian nationalism, it warns Christians against it.

Come out of her [Babylon] my people,
lest you take part in her sins,
lest you share in her plagues.

Revelation 19:4

Advancing God’s kingdom today requires that we remain distinct from the world (Jn. 15:19). Christian nationalism, in any form whatsoever, is backsliding because it blurs the line of distinction between the church and the world, between foreigners and citizens, and between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world. To seek to build up nations reverses what Jesus accomplished when he established a kingdom that would rule over all nations, and one day will ultimately triumph over all earthly rule and authority (1 Cor. 15.24).

Just as Old Testament Israel rebelled against God when they demanded a king, Christians express a lack of trust in God when they embrace Christian nationalism. Christians are citizens of a different kingdom (Phil. 3:20). It’s time we live like it.

Roe v. Wade and the Temptation To Do Good

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life1 Comment

On June 24, 2022 the Supreme Court made the wonderful decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. When the news broke it was immediately recognized as a time for celebration for Christians, and for good reason. But along with the positivity, there’s been another side of the Christian response which has been troubling. That is, many Christians have pointed to this as evidence of the good that Christians can accomplish by pursuing political influence and power. It is argued that Roe v. Wade would have never been overturned without Christians using the political strategies and choices that were necessary to bring about this change.

Although I unapologetically celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision, I do not believe that Christians should look to earthly power as the primary, or even as one of the ways to bring about good in the world. Not only do I whole heartedly oppose abortion, I also believe that the kingdom of God must be kept distinct from the kingdom of the world; not only in what we say is wrong, but also in how we fight against what we recognize as wrong. As a believer in moral absolutes, I believe abortion is wrong and is destructive to society. I also think it is important for Christians to heed the warning of Psalm 146:3, to “put not your trust in princes.” As a Christian, I celebrate the Supreme Court for their decision which could potentially save millions of lives, and I call on Christians to faithfully follow the way of Jesus, who rejected earthly political influence in order to establish a kingdom which is not of this world.

Yes, I know I’m being redundant. But that’s because some Christians still just don’t get it. Let me make myself perfectly clear: I oppose abortion. Abortion is murder. Abortion is selfish. Abortion is immoral. Christians should actively fight against evil, and abortion is evil. But none of this should be viewed as justification for Christians to fight against evil in ways that blur the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world. This is precisely what most (if not all) activities and decisions made in the pursuit of earthly power cause Christians to do.

A Kingdom Not Of This World

My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.

John 18:36

When Jesus claimed “My kingdom is not of this world”, He pointed to the observable fact that his disciples were not fighting to substantiate that claim. Of course, you could say that in a sense Jesus’s entire ministry was a fight against evil. But even still, Jesus’s disciples were not fighting in the same way that other revolutionaries would fight.

When Jesus used the phrase “of this world” He was not speaking of the geographic location of His kingdom, but rather He was referring to the world’s way of doing things. For example, Jesus said He came to testify against “the world” because its deeds are evil (Jn. 7:7). Elsewhere, John would say, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). The contrast between “of this world” and “not of this world” is referring to the world’s ways of doing things and a godly way of doing things.

If Jesus’s disciples had a reputation of fighting in the same way the world fights, Jesus’s claim would have been completely meaningless. Can you imagine Pilate’s response if this had been the case? “What do you mean your kingdom is not of this world? Then why is Peter standing out there handing out picket signs at the political rally? Why did Matthew just send a donation to a Roman senator? And why is Simon recruiting more zealots?” But as it was, Jesus’s disciples were not fighting, and so Jesus’s teaching stood with the weight of observable truth.

Yes, Jesus’s early followers, like us, also had an earthly citizenship. But despite the fact that they lived under subjection to the kingdoms of this world, their distinction from the world remained apparent. They were “in” the world but not “of” the world.

Scripture drives home this distinction when it teaches us to view ourselves as soldiers stationed in a foreign country, and thus refuse to let ourselves get entangled in “civilian pursuits” (2 Tim. 2:4). It teaches us to view ourselves as “strangers” and “exiles”, just like Abraham did (Heb. 11:8-10, 13-16; 1 Peter 2:11).

Note this carefully – preserving our “exile” status is at the very core of who we are. That’s why Scripture repeatedly stresses the fact that we are called to be a “holy” people (2 Cor. 6:17), indicating that we are to be “set apart” (Ps. 4:3). Like Israelites coming out of Egypt to be “set apart” for God, Christians are instructed to “come out” of Babylon (Rev. 18:4). We are to be holy in the same way that God is holy. Our holy and distinct relationship with the world should be every bit as holy and distinct as Jesus’s relationship with the world.

Our Mission

It’s important to understand that I’m not arguing that Christians should adapt an escapist position, where we simply isolate ourselves from societal problems such as abortion. When God called Israel to be a “holy nation”, the purpose was not to isolate them from other nations. Israel was to be a holy nation so that they would serve as a light to the other nations (Isa. 49:6; 55:4-5, etc). God’s plan was always to bless all nations through Abraham’s family (Gen. 12:1-3).

So too, Christians are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt. 5:13-16). But in order for us to be salt in the world, we must maintain our distinction from the world.

If salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.

One way we maintain our holy distinction from the world is by refusing to pursue ruling authority over others. That’s the way the world tried to accomplish great things, but Jesus explicitly instructs us not to seek that kind of power.

You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But is shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mark 10:42-45

God so loved the world that He sent his only begotten Son (John 3:16), and we are to imitate His love for the world by imitating his self-sacrificial behavior (Eph. 5:1-2). If we really love the world, and want to make a positive difference in the world, we would do well to love the world in the same way God did. The reason we are not to be “of” the world is so that we can be “for” the world.

We are not simply called to do “good”. We are called to be faithful. We are called to “imitate Christ”. We are called to be holy.

Jesus and the Temptation to Do Good

Paul says that we must be careful not to be outwitted by Satan’s designs (2 Cor. 2:11). With this in mind, we would be wise to reflect on how Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, so that we do not fall into a similar trap.

The Devil tempted Jesus by offering him all the kingdoms of the world (Luke 4:5-8). The Devil essentially offered Jesus what he came to get (Mt. 28:18-20), but by way of an immediate shortcut that would bypass his sacrificial death on the cross.

Think about it. Without having to suffer and die, Jesus could have immediately taken all the kingdoms of the world into his possession. Can you imagine how much “good” Jesus could have done if he had accepted Satan’s offer? He could have quicky overturned every evil law in Roman society. Jesus could have immediately outlawed abortion throughout the world. The Devil’s temptation would not have been a temptation if there was not a lot of “good” wrapped up in it.

Yet Jesus refused. Why? Because Jesus did not come just to give us an improved and more “godly” version of the kingdoms of this world. Instead, Jesus came to bring a kingdom that is not of this world. In fulfillment of Psalm 2, Jesus came to replace “the kingdom of the world” with “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.” (Rev. 11:15-18). He didn’t just come to fix the kingdoms of this world. He came to put them out of business, thus turning all nations to him.

As tempting as the immediately good consequences may have been, Jesus refused to lose the radical distinction of his Kingdom in exchange for the Satan-ruled kingdom of this world. No matter how much good he could have done. He refused to rule like the Gentiles did. If we are dedicated to following Jesus’s example, we must resist the temptation to trade our holy mission regardless of how much “good” we might think we can accomplish by using other means.

Continue the Fight

Abortion is a great evil. Its existence testifies to the fact that Satan is, in a very real sense the “ruler of the world” (Jn. 14:30; 16:11), “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:1-4), and the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:1-2). Abortion thrives only under Satan’s “domain of darkness” (Col. 1:3). That’s why it is so important that in our fight against abortion, we are careful not to be “conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2).

So what do we do now? Christians should continue the fight against abortion as they have done in the past, yet without the pursuit of earthly power. Keep finding ways to serve the poor and the needy in your community. Keep inviting them into your homes. Keep supporting single mothers. Keep volunteering at pregnancy crisis centers. Keep adopting. Keep getting involved in foster care. Keep donating to children’s homes. Keep praying. The church has long led the charge in these type of actions, and that must continue. Yes, all of these things require a degree of personal sacrifice, but imitating the sacrificial savior is precisely what sets us apart from the world. Because of the gospel, sacrifice is how we believe we will win.

If we want to see Satan’s dominion weakened, we must remain faithful to God’s kingdom. Two thousand years ago, Jesus pointed to his disciples’ refusal to fight as proof that his kingdom was not of this world. When Jesus looks at our fight against abortion, does he see that our actions still bear witness to that truth?

“God’s Provisions of Authority” by David Lipscomb

On By The Christian ExileIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Restoration, The Authority of God

The Gospel Advocate; January 23, 1866

We propose investigating, at this time, the relationship of the church to the political institutions of earth. In the investigation of this subject, we shall use certain terms, very common in themselves, but hardly with a sufficient definiteness of meaning to permit a use of them in this investigation, without first defining them. We shall use the adjectives, civil and political, when connected with the institutions of earth, as indicating those of human origin, in contradiction to those of divine origin. Civil government then, is a government founded by man for the well-being of the human family, in contradiction from a government founded of God for man’s well-being. With this definition, it will at a glance be seen that no civil or human institutions can exist in a government exclusively of God. Hence we never hear of a civil policy in the Church of God. God alone is the law-giver to his church. It also behooves us in determining definitely what relationship now exists between the Church of Christ and the political governments of the world, to inquire into the origin of each, whence did they originate, how stood they with reference to each other in the beginning, too, the successive changes that have taken place in each, with reference to the other, and how these changes have been regarded by God, the great arbiter of right and wrong. By pursuing this course we feel sure that a definite and clear appreciation of the relationship of church and state, may be arrived at, which will be of benefit to both, if acted upon.

Commencing then with the first creation of man the subject of both the human and divine governments, we find that God, in proposing to create him in his own image, declared that,

he shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping think that creepeth upon the face of the earth.

Genesis 1:26

Man, having been created, receives his commission to live and act. In that he is empowered to,

subdue the earth, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:28

All authority is of God and from God. He, the maker of all things, alone had the right to assign to every created thing its position, functions, and powers.

There is no person or thing then in the universe that can rightfully occupy any particular position or exercise any especial authority or power, save by appointment directly from God. All other exercise of authority must be in rebellion against the Creator. God here directly delegates to man the right to subdue and control the whole lower creation. He is assigned the position of head of this under creation, and has the unquestioned right to hold it subservient to his own will and to command it to the accomplishment of his own purposes.

But who governs and directs man? Has God empowered him to control and direct himself? We find no such power delegated to him, but on the contrary He says, “that it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps aright.” But in contrast with his delegating this authority to man to control the brute creation, the inspired historian says in Genesis 11:16, “The Lord God commanded the man.” In other words, I have given you, man, the right and power to control and use under creation, but I reserve to myself the right, the sole right to govern and control you.

It is noteworthy, that when God once delegated authority to an under agent, he never himself interfered with the exercise of that authority, or reassumed it to himself. Hence, having once delegated to man the right to control the under creation, he never interfered with the exercise of that right. So we find him nowhere issuing commands to the under portion of creation. Still less, we may safely conclude, will he tolerate interference upon the part of man, with what he has reserved to himself as his peculiar prerogative. Then God reserved to himself the sole right to govern and control man, the assumption to govern himself or to govern his fellow man was an interference with God’s prerogative.

In accordance with this reserved right or prerogative of God, we find that he has always made provision for its exercise, by keeping continually a government of his own, in which he proposes to direct man. In the Garden of Eden he governed Adam, to provided for his government, by commands given directly to him in person. When he chose to try his own capacity to direct his steps aright, death, with its untold horrors, resulted. When Adam refused to obey his Maker’s law, as thus given, was driven from the garden of Eden, God still provided a government for all who were disposed to submit to his authority, though the patriarchal institution. In this the father was law-giver and law executor of God to his family.

When the family, that recognized God’s authority, had grown in numbers and proportions to the strength of a nation, God changed his institution from a family to a national government. Under this establishment Moses was not the law-maker, but the law-giver to the Jewish nation. God, himself alone, was the law-maker. We wish it observed that there was no human or civil polity in the Jewish government as it came from its maker. God gave the law through Moses. Through the Prophets and Judges, God applied his own law to the difficulties and differences that arose among his people, and himself through his Urim and Thummim decided every dispute that was brought to His judgment seat. There was here no human legislative, judicial, or executive authority, save as it was under the direct guidance of God.

This institution having superceded and supplanted the Patriarchal dispensation, continued until perverted by the introduction of a human polity, it corrupted the people it had been established to keep pure. When this people, as a whole, had rejected God’s government, and had substituted instead thereof, a human one, God rejected them as his people. Howbeit a few of that nation had, in spite of the influence of the perverted government, maintained their integrity to God. Under the providential workings of God with the other nations of the earth, the minds of some individuals of other nations had also been prepared for the reception of God’s government. He then introduced a new dispensation suited to embrace individuals, many or few, under any and all the nationalities of earth and for all time. This new dispensation, universal in its nature, superceded and supplanted the Jewish national dispensation, as it had done the patriarchal, but this is to stand forever.

God then, in accordance with his design of governing man, has at no time left himself without a government. These governments have been at all times complete and perfect in themselves, needing no interpolation or addition from human hands. To the Jews he said,

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it, you shall not add thereto nor diminish from it.

Deuteronomy 12:32

In the universal or Christian dispensation, he said,

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto every good work.

2 Timothy 3:16

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and out of the things that are written in this book.

Revelation 22:18-19

So God has always provided an institution for man’s government, free from the defilement of human hands. In his government then there can be no civil or human polity.

Christianity and Social Movements

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life

In their sincere passion to fight against evil, many Christians try to promote and uphold whichever social and political movements they feel best represent their Christian values. Far too often, this results in Christians fighting against one another about which social movements best reflect Christian values, rather than actually uniting with one another to fight against Satan.

There are debates over racism, politicians, political parties, facemasks, vaccines, immigration, economics, the narrative presented by the mainstream media, education strategies, and on and on. Whenever these innumerable social debates occur, Christians can usually be found on opposing sides, with each side arguing that their side best reflects Christian values. Christians latch on to whichever side seems the most right, and they do their best to actively support the right side, with the goal of defeating the wrong side.

The Christian Response to Ungodliness in Culture

As people who live in a democracy, Christians are for the most part free to voice their opinions however they see fit. But, when Christians choose to actively support and participate in various political and social movements, it is crucially important that they realize that there is nothing distinctly Christian about their activism. Their opinions may be completely correct. They may even be founded on godly ethical principles taken straight from Scripture. The wrongs they seek to address may in fact be very real and harmful evils. But being correct and noble does not mean that a particular social movement is “Christian.”

Being a “Christian” means being “Christ-like”. Don’t misunderstand what I’m about to say. Jesus Christ most certainly fought against the ungodly aspects of his culture. Christ encouraged his disciples to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt. 5:12-16). The movement led by Christ was so successful in doing just that, they were accused of “turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). But Jesus never showed the slightest interest in joining in any of the various social movements of his day. Nor did his earliest disciples.

Jesus’s complete lack of interest in picking sides between the various social movements becomes even more significant when we remember that he lived in political volatile times that were filled with competing social movements. Not surprisingly, as Jesus gained popularity and influence, Jesus was continually challenged to voice his opinion on the various movements of his day to see which side he would choose. But Jesus continually refused.

The Taxation Debate

For example, on at least one occasion Jesus was asked about the divisive issue of whether or not the Jews should pay taxes to the oppressive Romans. Notice Jesus’s response:

Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

Matthew 20:19-21

Some have mistakenly thought that Jesus was saying “Yes, be a good citizen. Pay your taxes, vote, do whatever your country asks of you.” But if we pay attention to Jesus’s response in its original context, it means nothing of the sort.

The coin bore the image of the emperor, which the Jews saw as a direct violation of God’s law (Ex. 20:4; Lev. 26:1). The coin bore an inscription claiming that Caesar was the High Priest and Lord. Scripture teaches that the God alone is the only true Lord, and everything rightly belongs to Him (Ps. 24:1; 50:10; Hag. 2:8) and man is created in His image (Gen. 1:26-27).

By holding up the coin and asking about the image and inscription, Jesus skillfully pointed out that the claims of God and the claims of Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one’s loyalty is to Caesar, Caesar is owed everything, beginning with the coin that bears his image. If one’s loyalty is to God, God is owed everything, beginning with man himself who is created in His image.

In this way, Jesus transformed the question pertaining to the political and social movements of his day into a question that pertained to the kingdom of God.

The Uniqueness of Christianity

This episode and others (e.g. Lk 12:13-16) make it clear that Jesus did not come to answer our political questions or offer a new and improved way of running the kingdoms of this world (Mt. 4:8-11). Rather, Jesus came to establish a radically different kind of kingdom, one that is “not of this world” (John 18:36). The only instructions Christians are given in connection with governing authorities are to respect and submit to them, pay taxes to them, and pray for them (Mk. 12:13-17; Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). And even these instructions are given not out of concern for how the government should be run, but rather to facilitate the spreading of the gospel (1 Tim. 2:1-6).

The point of all this isn’t to argue that Christians can’t have opinions about the various social movements that divide our society. The point isn’t to say that Christians can’t vote, can’t peacefully protest, and can’t voice their opinions. But Christians must remember that when they engage the problems of the world using these methods, they are not being unique from the world.

Anybody can add their two-cents on social media about the problems in the world. Anybody can donate to a political campaign. Anybody can rally support for a particular cause they believe in. This approach is not a uniquely Christ-ian approach, because Christ himself did not take that kind of approach. Our unique call as disciples of Christ has nothing to do with gaining enough influence to run the kingdoms of the world, and has everything to do with our unique way of living under the authority of God’s reign.

Ultimately hope for the world does not reside in the success of failure of our particular political or social movements. It resides in the willingness of Jesus’s disciples to follow His example by keeping His kingdom set apart from the world (the Bible’s word for this is “holy”). We are to be unique from the world by not getting sucked into the innumerable social and political conflicts that characterize the world.

Our citizenship is in a kingdom that is not of this world. The heavenly kingdom is a unique one, where we believe the world is changed, not by gaining enough power and influence to defeat our enemies, but by trusting in God’s righteous judgment even when our enemies defeat us. In Jesus’s kingdom, we find greatness, not in ruling over others, but rather in serving them (Mt. 20:25-28).

Next time social division raises its ugly head and we are tempted to pick a side and join the fight, let’s pick the holy side. Let’s pick the unique side. Let’s pick the sides the wins the same way Jesus won; by self-sacrificial love. Let’s pick the Kingdom of God.

Why We Don’t Sing the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Christian's Relationship to Government, Love for Enemies, Revelation

When I was younger, I was taught that the most important part of our worship in song wasn’t the notes, but rather the words. When we sing to God, we are also speaking to and teaching one another (Eph. 5.19; Col. 3.16). We should be able to “sing with the mind” (1 Cor. 14.15).

Every Sunday, our worship is filled with wonderful, beautiful, theologically rich hymns which remind us of biblical truths.  But growing up in the church, there was one song that we didn’t sing. In fact, we avoided it. We never sang “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” It’s not that we didn’t know the song (if you know the tune of “Booster”, you know the song). But rather, we avoided it because of its anti-Christian message.

Of course, there are some who remain ignorant of the song’s history and its anti-Christian theology. There have been rare occasions (usually near a patriotic holiday) where I’ve heard this song led in worship. But those occasions are rare. And even when the song is led, there are usually at least a handful of Christians throughout the auditorium standing there in awkward silence.

It is important to pay attention to the message we teach with our songs. That’s why many Christians don’t sing the “Battle Hymn.”

The Origins of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”

(Source: Chapter 8 of Julia Ward Howe’s biography. You can read it here.)

The Battle Hymn of the Republic was written in 1861 by a northern political activist, Julia Ward Howe. As an abolitionist, she was convinced that the Union cause was moral and righteous, and thus felt justified in supporting the destruction of her southern neighbors.

Returning from a visit to Washington in 1861, her carriage was delayed by marching regiments of Union soldiers. To pass the time, she and her companions sang several war songs which were popular at the time. Among them was a song called “John Brown’s Body”.

John Brown’s body lied a-moulding in the grave,
His soul is marching on!

The tune was catchy, and it wasn’t long until the marching soldiers joined in singing with her. One of her friends then suggested to her, “Mrs. Howe, why do you not write some good words for that stirring tune?”

Early the following morning the following lyrics came to her:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.

After the song was published in 1862, it quickly found its way into military camps, and was frequently sung in exhortation before battles, and was sung joyously upon the news of military victories. In describing why she had written the song, Howe said:

Something seems to say to me, “You would be glad to serve, but you cannot help anyone; you have nothing to give, and there is nothing for you to do.” Yet, because of my sincere desire, a word was given to me to say, which did strengthen the hearts of those who fought in the field and of those who languished in the prison.

Despite originating during the war, it is important to realize that opposition to singing this “hymn” has nothing to do with who we think was right or wrong during the war. It has everything to do with the anti-Christian message of the song.

The Theology of the “Battle Hymn”

Like many who lived in the 19th century, Howe was very familiar with the Bible. Therefore the song is filled with language and imagery from Scripture. The song certainly has a spiritual message, but the message is not a Christian message.

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is religious war propaganda. It twists and turns the biblical imagery for the purpose of “strengthening the hearts” of union soldiers as they fought and killed their southern neighbors. Far from being a Christian hymn, the “Battle Hymn” is anti-Christian to the core.

Revelation 19 and the Coming of the Lord

The phrase “coming of the Lord” is understood to refer to the 2nd coming of Christ (1 Thess. 4.15; Jas. 5.7-8). Despite the fact that the phrase “coming of the Lord” never appears in the book of Revelation, most of the songs images are drawn from Revelation 19.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which not one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “King of kings, and Lord of lords.” – Rev. 19.11-16

In this passage, violence, war, and judgment seem to accompany the appearance of Christ, who arrives on a white horse (a common image used for Roman military conquerors). The passage describes Jesus in a blood-drenched robe treading out the “wine press of the fierce wrath of God.” Howe poetically uses the image to describe the Lord “Trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.”

The problem is that Howe wrote this lyric, not for the purpose of trusting in the Lord’s judgment, but rather for the purpose of giving Union troops license to kill their southern enemies. Americans have continually heard this popular patriotic song exactly as it was intended by Howe to be understood – as a validation for Americans to destroy enemies whom they judge as being immoral.

As Howe wrote the following verses with Union soldiers in mind, seeking to “offer service to their cause”, even the triumph of the gospel and the birth of Christ and twisted into justification for war.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal”
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on!

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never sound retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before his judgment seat,
O be swift, my soul, to answer Him, Be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on!

In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me;
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on!

John’s Use of Military Imagery

The Bible is no stranger to using military imagery (1 Tim. 1.18; 2 Tim. 2.3), and Revelation 19 is no exception. But Julia Ward Howe and John of Patmos use military imagery to opposite ends.

Howe used the military imagery of Revelation 19 to “strengthen the hearts” of union soldiers as they marched into battle against their enemies. John used Roman military imagery to show that Christ (as opposed to Roman military leaders) will ultimately win the day. If we are looking for a heroic conqueror on a white horse to ride in and save the day, John doesn’t want for us to look for a Roman military leader, a Union General, or any other military hero. He wants us to look to Christ.

By the time Revelation was written, the “sword” was already commonly understood by Christians as a figure of the word of God (Eph. 6.17; Heb. 4.12). Earlier in the book of Revelation, Christ is described as having a sword coming out of his mouth, strongly reinforcing this image (Rev. 1.16). The fact that Revelation 19 describes the sword coming out of Jesus’ mouth indicates that the “weapon” John envisions is not the “burnished rows of steel”, but rather the God’s word.

John then describes how the sword is used to strike down the nations and rule them with a rod of iron. This is quite the opposite of Howe’s usage of Revelation’s imagery to “strengthen the hearts of those who fought” for her nation. In Revelation 19, the nations are not the victors. Rather the nations, having been deceived by Babylon (Rev. 18.23), are the ones who are defeated by the triumphant word of God.

The Victory of the Lamb

The book of Revelation not only assures us of Christ’s victory, it also gives us understanding as to how God destroys evil.

Amid all the violence and evil in the world, Revelation 5 gives good news. The victorious Lion of Judah is here to fight for us! But the surprising thing is that when John turns around to see the Lion, He looks like a slain Lamb.

“And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain.” (Rev. 5.6)

Significantly, a similar surprise is seen in the Revelation 19 battle scene. A close reading will show that the blood on Christ’s garment was not that of his enemies. Christ is described as being covered in blood (v. 13) before the enemies are struck down (v. 15). The blood is not that of His enemies. It is His own blood.

At the conclusion of Jesus’s conquest, He bears a new title: “King of kings and Lord of lords” (v. 16). Jesus replaces every other king, lord, or other political power which may demand our allegiance. Immediately after the conquest, the kings, the military commanders, the mighty men, the horses are their riders are all defeated (vs. 17-18).

Julia Ward Howe wrote the Battle Hymn to strengthen others in their allegiance to the Union. Revelation 19 challenges us to give our allegiance to Him who is Faithful and True as opposed to giving our allegiance to the nations of this earth with their kings and military conquerors. The “Battle Hymn” uses the same images, but to a completely opposite end.

Choose Your Side

Though the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is filled with scriptural images, it has nothing to do with following Jesus. This is why many Christians don’t sing the “Battle Hymn”. We don’t sing the “Battle Hymn”, because we have decided to give our allegiance and worship to Christ alone, rejecting allegiance to any other defeated king, lord, or political entity.

Breaking the Pagan Paradigm

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government

Do Christians Have a Responsibility to Influence Our Culture for Good?

In recent years, I have written several articles to discourage Christians from getting involved in the pursuit of political power. (For example, read here, here, or find a full list of articles here).

In response to these articles, one objection is continually raised: Christians have a responsibility to be salt and light to influence our world for good. Therefore, when it comes to social and/or moral issues, Christians have an obligation to be politically involved.

In response to this objection, let us first consider the question, “Do Christians have a moral obligation to be salt and light, influencing culture for good?” I believe scripture makes the answer clear.

  • Disciples of Jesus have a responsibility to be the “salt of the earth“, and to be the ‘light of the world” (Mt. 5.13-14)
  • The church has the responsibility to “expose” the “unfruitful deeds of darkness” (Eph. 5.11)
  • Christians should encourage the surrounding culture to glorify God (1 Pet. 2.12)
  • Peter instructs the church to “silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Pet. 2.15)

Other scriptures could be cited to this same end. I’ve never questioned whether or not Christians should strive to influence our culture for good. Although I have tried to discourage Christians being politically active, I’ve never believed that Christians should do nothing.

So why does the objection continue to come up? I don’t think anybody is intentionally trying to misrepresent my position. Why is the objection so common? Why do so many Christians feel they have a moral obligation to be involved politically?

The answer is found when we realize that many Christians continue to be trapped in a pagan paradigm. Once we recognize this pagan paradigm, these objections begin to make a lot of sense.

Trapped In a Pagan Paradigm

For a vast majority of people in our world “influencing culture for good” is basically equated with “using political power for good.” This shouldn’t surprise us. If someone doesn’t believe in the power of the gospel, they will naturally believe that power lies elsewhere. From a worldly perspective, nobody has more power, more influence, or more capacity to do more good than those who wield political power. Therefore, according to this paradigm, if we have an opportunity to influence political powers for good, and we refuse that opportunity, we have forsaken the opportunity to influence our society for good.

Unfortunately many Christians struggle to break free from this paradigm. For them, whenever they read someone suggesting that Christians should not be politically active, it is assumed that they are suggesting that Christians should not influence culture for good. For those trapped in this paradigm, to withdraw from political involvement is to withdraw from being “salt” and “light”.

The problem with this paradigm is that it does not recognize the conceptual possibility that Christians could be socially active, engage moral issues in society, and influence society for good while at the same time separating the gospel from political involvement. Yet this is precisely what I understand that Christians should do.

At this point I anticipate another objection to be raised. “You’ve over simplified the matter. I don’t ‘equate’ being salt and light with being politically active. I recognize that there are other non-political ways a person could positively impact culture. But still, political influence is one of several methods a person may use to confront social and/or moral issues.”

Perhaps this is true. But if we really believe this counter-objection is true, why continue to raise the initial objection to Christians who withdraw from political powers? If we recognize that Christians can be “salt” and “light” in non-political ways, then why suggest that someone is forsaking their Christian responsibility by not being politically active? Either we don’t actually believe that Christians have a responsibility to be politically active or we don’t actually believe that Christians can influence culture for good while not being politically active. We can’t consistently hold to both at the same time.

I suspect the reality is that these Christians recognize that we can influence culture for good without being politically active, but view non-political methods as less influential than political methods. In other words, they don’t believe in the effectiveness of non-political methods in comparison to political methods. Thus they continue to essentially equate the responsibility to “influence culture for good” with the responsibility to “be politically involved.” They continue to be trapped in a pagan paradigm.

Where Does This Pagan Paradigm Come From?

It is important to recognize that this way of viewing the world did not originate with Jesus. Jesus never so much as commented on the hot political issues of his day. Whenever Jesus was asked directly about sensitive political issues, he used these questions as opportunities to point people to the kingdom of God (Mt. 22.15-22; Lk 12.13-15). On multiple occasions, Jesus had the opportunity to gain political power (power He most certainly would have used for good) yet He continually refused that power (Jn. 6.15). This was precisely the kind of power Jesus rejected as a temptation from Satan (Lk. 4.5-7).

Would we suggest that Jesus was failing to be salt of the earth? Was Jesus forsaking an opportunity to be the light of the world? Does this mean that Jesus had forsaken the opportunity to be socially active? Does this mean Jesus didn’t care about the moral issues in His society? Did Jesus thereby fail to influence His culture for good? Of course not!

(For more on Jesus, read here.)

We should also recognize that this paradigm did not originate with the New Testament church. The only things the New Testament commands Christians to do in relation to political powers is to submit to them (Rom. 13.1-4; 1 Pet. 2.13-14), to strive to obey them (Tit. 3.1), to pay taxes (Rom. 13.7), to honor them (Rom. 13.7; 1 Pet. 2.17), and to pray for them (1 Tim. 2.1-2). More significantly, Christians are commanded not to act as judges over non-Christians (1 Cor. 5.12-13; 1 Pet. 4.17; Mt. 7.1-5). And yet, the early church was credited with “turning the world upside down” (NKJV), not because of the way they influenced Caesar for good, but rather because they claimed “there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17.6-7).

(For more on how the early church approached politics, read here, here, and here.)

So where does this paradigm come from? The answer can be seen in Matthew 20.25-28:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your salve; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

According to Jesus, the pagan world is characterized by their quest for power and ruling authority. The quest to influence the world for good by the means of political power is a pagan strategy resulting from a pagan paradigm. And it is precisely at this point that Jesus challenges His disciples to differentiate themselves from the world. The greatest in the kingdom of Christ do not rule; they serve. If Christians are to be “salt” and “light” in the world, we must be “salt” and “light” in the same way Jesus was salt and light; through self-sacrificial love. Christians should have absolutely no desire to take part in the pursuit of ruling power.

Jesus reinforced this point in John 18.36-37:

Jesus answer, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

The way Jesus’ disciples are differentiated from the world is in their refusal to fight for power the way that kingdoms of this world fight for power.

Christians aren’t distinguished from pagans simply in that we want to influence the world for good (Christians and non-Christians both want to influence the world for good, though they may disagree what “good” should look like). Christians are to be “salt” and “light” by being poor in spirit; by being gentle; by being peacemakers; by allowing themselves to be persecuted by their enemies (Mt. 5.1-12). We must not lose this key distinction.

But if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to the thrown out and trampled under foot by men. – Matthew 5.13

“But the Church Doesn’t Have Enough Resources”

“But the church doesn’t have enough resources. We can do far more good by influencing political powers than we could ever achieve by ourselves.”

I disagree.

If only a small fraction of Christians worked together and sacrificed to help the poor, to support adoption, to support struggling mothers who might otherwise consider abortion, or to lead the fight against racism, they could make an incredible difference.

Can the church do more? Absolutely. But the reason the church is not currently having a bigger influence in the world is because we’re too busy fighting over what Caesar should do about social and moral issues instead of actually doing what Jesus has called us to do. Too many Christians feel like they are doing their part by simply visiting the voting booth once every couple of years. “I voted against abortion, so I did my part” or “I voted to help the poor, so I did my part”. I’m not suggesting that Christians cannot vote, or that every voter fits this description, but we must never be deceived into thinking that political involvement excuses us from sacrificially serving.

The Power of the Gospel

Ultimately, hope for our society (and for our world) doesn’t depend on which party gets in power or which bills get passed into law. Hope for the world depends on Christians using the power God has given us. Hope for the world depends on Christians being distinctive from the world as salt and light.

The power to influence the world for good isn’t a power that gets released when we wrestle ruling authority away from our opponents. The power of the gospel is the power of the cross; the power we have even when our enemies are the ones sitting as rulers, as judges, and as executioners; the power we have when we are nailed into a completely “powerless” position.

The pagan paradigm was put to the ultimate test when Jesus was nailed to the cross. And the pagan paradigm was shattered when Jesus rose from the dead.

It’s time to break free from the pagan paradigm.