Politics after Christendom

Political Theology in a Fractured World

David VanDrunen

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780310108856
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion, Politics & State

For more than a millennium, beginning in the early Middle Ages, most Western Christians lived in societies that sought to be comprehensively Christian--ecclesiastically, economically, legally, and politically. That is to say, most Western Christians lived in Christendom. But in a gradual process beginning a few hundred years ago, Christendom weakened and finally crumbled. Today, most Christians in the world live in pluralistic political communities. And Christians themselves have very different opinions about what to make of the demise of Christendom and how to understand their status and responsibilities in a post-Christendom world.

Politics After Christendom argues that Scripture leaves Christians well-equipped for living in a world such as this. Scripture gives no indication that Christians should strive to establish some version of Christendom. Instead, it prepares them to live in societies that are indifferent or hostile to Christianity, societies in which believers must live faithful lives as sojourners and exiles. Politics After Christendom explains what Scripture teaches about political community and about Christians' responsibilities within their own communities.

As it pursues this task, Politics After Christendom makes use of several important theological ideas that Christian thinkers have developed over the centuries. These ideas include Augustine's Two-Cities concept, the Reformation Two-Kingdoms category, natural law, and a theology of the biblical covenants. Politics After Christendom brings these ideas together in a distinctive way to present a model for Christian political engagement. In doing so, it interacts with many important thinkers, including older theologians (e.g., Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin), recent secular political theorists (e.g., Rawls, Hayek, and Dworkin), contemporary political-theologians (e.g., Hauerwas, O'Donovan, and Wolterstorff), and contemporary Christian cultural commentators (e.g., MacIntyre, Hunter, and Dreher).

Part 1 presents a political theology through a careful study of the biblical story, giving special attention to the covenants God has established with his creation and how these covenants inform a proper view of political community. Part 1 argues that civil governments are legitimate but penultimate, and common but not neutral. It concludes that Christians should understand themselves as sojourners and exiles in their political communities. They ought to pursue justice, peace, and excellence in these communities, but remember that these communities are temporary and thus not confuse them with the everlasting kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians' ultimate citizenship is in this new-creation kingdom.

Part 2 reflects on how the political theology developed in Part 1 provides Christians with a framework for thinking about perennial issues of political and legal theory. Part 2 does not set out a detailed public policy or promote a particular political ideology. Rather, it suggests how Christians might think about important social issues in a wise and theologically sound way, so that they might be better equipped to respond well to the specific controversies they face today. These issues include race, religious liberty, family, economics, justice, rights, authority, and civil resistance. After considering these matters, Part 2 concludes by reflecting on the classical liberal and conservative traditions, as well as recent challenges to them by nationalist and progressivist movements.

PART 1

POLITICAL
THEOLOGY

CHAPTER 1

LEGITIMATE, BUT PROVISIONAL, COMMON, BUT ACCOUNTABLE
The Contours of a Christian Political Theology

Political theology is complex and controversial, and it is not at all obvious where to start. I believe it will be helpful to begin by identifying and defending a few basic ideas that provide an overview of a biblically grounded political theology. This should lay an excellent foundation for our study in the chapters that follow. After this, I will step back and consider where these foundational ideas fit in the long history of Christian political-theological reflection. This discussion will help readers understand how my project resembles and differs from other important political theologies of past and present.

The foundational political-theological ideas of this book are simple to state and crucial to understand but, as Christian theological history suggests, not easy to work out in detail. The ideas are these: God has ordained civil government—as the ruling authority of political communities—to be legitimate, but provisional, and to be common, but accountable. Let us consider each of these in turn.

LEGITIMATE

First, civil government is legitimate. By this I mean that civil government has a right and even an obligation to carry out its proper work. As argued later, civil government’s proper work is to promote justice. Thus when civil governments and political officials promote justice within a particular society, they are not engaging in an act of usurpation but exercising legitimate authority. Although they may come to power by different routes, furthermore, God is the ultimate source of their legitimacy.

Several New Testament texts speak explicitly of civil government and have been foundational for Christian thinking about legitimate political authority. According to Paul, there is no governing authority “except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom 13:1). God establishes these authorities for beneficial purposes, namely, to approve of those who do good and to “bear the sword” as “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:3–4). Along similar lines, Peter writes of governors “as sent by him [God] to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Pet 2:14). As such, these magistrates are God’s “servants” and “ministers” (Rom 13:4, 6). Doing their work well enables Christians to “lead a peaceful and quiet life” (1 Tim 2:2). Since God has ordained civil magistrates for such propitious ends, Christians ought to submit to them, honor them, pay taxes (Matt 22:16–21; Rom 13:1–2, 5–7; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13–17), and pray for them (1 Tim 2:1–2).

While these texts directly affirm political legitimacy, Acts does so indirectly through its account of the early church. Here the apostles implicitly acknowledge the legitimate authority of civil officials and the legal structures in which they operate. Paul had frequent confrontations with the powers of his day, and though they sometimes treated him roughly, he never challenged their offices or the governing laws. On several memorable occasions, he asserted his rights under Roman law, both to have a trial before punishment (Acts 16:37; 22:25) and to appeal to Caesar (25:11). In Corinth Paul was ready to defend himself in court, until the judge dismissed the charges (18:14–15), and in Caesarea he defended himself repeatedly (24:10–21; 26:2–23). In one of his court appearances, he addressed the governor with the sort of respect he commends in Romans 13: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense” (Acts 24:10). In fact, the various civil magistrates readers meet in the course of Paul’s ministry often act rather sensibly, recognizing what is just and acknowledging the limits of their jurisdiction (Acts 16:38–39; 18:14–16; 19:35–41; 22:25–29; 23:16–35; 27:42–43).

In the New Testament, Christians are not only obligated to recognize legitimate political authority but also free to hold civil office. Zacchaeus was a chief tax collector (Luke 19:2), a position the people despised. After seeing Jesus from a sycamore tree and hosting him at his house, Zacchaeus promised restitution for those he defrauded but did not demit his office—and Jesus approved (19:8–10). Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Cohort, was a God-fearing gentile who sought Peter’s preaching and was subsequently baptized (Acts 10). Some Jewish Christians initially objected to granting him full fellowship with the church because he was an uncircumcised gentile (11:1–3), but no one objected to admitting him because of his military office. Shortly thereafter, Sergius Paulus, a proconsul in Cyprus and “man of intelligence,” believed in Christ through Paul’s teaching (Acts 13:6–12). In these and other instances (cf. Luke 3:13–14; Rom 16:23), holding civil office created no obstacle to Christian faith. Although the New Testament never comments normatively on government work as a vocation for Christians, the fact that civil office was a nonissue in the conversion of political officials is consistent with the New Testament’s general affirmation of the state’s legitimacy.

This evidence for the legitimacy of state authority is not unique to the New Testament, for the Old Testament provided ample witness of it long before Christ’s coming. One of the important claims of the present book is that the transition from Old to New through Christ’s ministry effects no essential change in the nature, purpose, or legitimate authority of civil government, and we can begin to see evidence for this claim already here. In what follows, I comment only on what the Old Testament says about civil governments among the gentile nations. Legitimate political authority also existed among the Israelites as they lived in their promised land under the law of Moses, but their experience was unique in important respects. Chapters 2 and 3 address this issue. For now, I simply consider some of the extensive evidence for political legitimacy among the gentile nations, among which the Roman Empire later emerged.

The Old Testament often recounts how God used civil magistrates to accomplish his good purposes, particularly with respect to his covenant people. Pharaoh, ruler of Egypt, offered provision and protection for Jacob’s family during famine (Gen 47), the king of Moab sheltered David and his family from the tyranny of Saul (1 Sam 22:3–4), and Israel in Babylonian exile enjoyed a degree of prosperity under Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 29:5–7). Subsequently, Cyrus the Persian restored the Israelites to their land (2 Chr 36:22–23; Ezra 1; Isa 45:1–13), and his successors supported them at several points of crisis (Ezra 6:1–5; Neh 2:1–8).

Although these incidents display how God used civil authority in his providential government of the world, they do not necessarily prove its legitimacy, since God sometimes uses evil things for his own ends. But legitimacy is clearly evident in several other texts, in which God’s people, with implicit or explicit divine blessing, actively acknowledge the work of gentile governments and participate in it. Three interesting things deserve mention. First, God’s servants occasionally made covenants with rulers of gentile nations. It is striking that the same Hebrew word describes both God’s covenants with human partners and intrahuman political treaties. These political covenants are solemn oaths that establish mutual recognition and responsibilities. Abraham entered such a covenant with King Abimelech of Gerar (Gen 21:22–32), and his son Isaac followed suit (Gen 26:26–31). Kings David and Solomon had friendly relationships with several foreign rulers (e.g., 2 Sam 10:1–2; 1 Kgs 10:1–13), but the most important seems to be the partnership with Hiram king of Tyre, with whom Solomon did extensive business (1 Kgs 5) and entered a covenant (5:12; 5:26). The Mosaic law prohibited Israel from making covenants with nations within the bounds of their promised land (Deut 7:1–2). Yet Solomon’s covenant with Hiram, a manifestation of his wisdom (1 Kgs 5:12), indicates that legitimate civil authority continued to exist among gentile nations elsewhere, even during the golden age of the Israelite theocracy.

Second, a number of Old Testament saints held high political office under gentile governments. Joseph, a God-fearing man who maintained hope in the promises to Abraham (e.g., 39:4–12; 42:18; 50:24–25), was second only to Pharaoh in the land of Egypt (41:38–44). During the exile, the godly Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego entered the Babylonian civil service with distinction (Dan 1) and later assumed positions of power (Dan 2:48–49). After the Medes and Persians overthrew Babylon, Daniel assumed another high position under Darius (Dan 6:1–3). He was such a faithful Persian civil servant that his enemies could find no ground to accuse him “with regard to the [Persian] kingdom” (6:4). The zealously pious Nehemiah (e.g., Neh 13) was cupbearer to a later Persian king, Artaxerxes (Neh 1–2). Another Persian king, Ahasuerus, took a Jew for his queen (Esther 2) and elevated her uncle Mordechai to second in command (10:3). It would be remarkable enough to know that members of God’s covenant people held even lowly civil office under three of the most powerful kingdoms of the ancient world; it is a wonder to learn that they assumed positions of the greatest authority short of being head of state.

Third, Jeremiah 27 and 29 provide perhaps the closest Old Testament counterpart to the explicit descriptions of government legitimacy and its corresponding obligations found in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. As God prepared Judah for exile, he declared to the rulers of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon, as well as to Judah, that he gives the earth to whomever he pleases and that he had given their lands to his servant Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:2–6). Therefore, they were all to submit to Nebuchadnezzar for their own good (27:7–22). Accordingly, Jeremiah’s letter to the first wave of Jewish exiles exhorted them not only to live normal lives in Babylon (29:5–6) but also to seek its welfare and to pray for it (29:7). Thus a great many pieces of New Testament teaching about the legitimacy of civil authority find precedent here: God’s appointment, the magistrate as divine servant, and the peoples’ obligation to submit to their magistrates and pray for them.

LEGITIMATE, BUT PROVISIONAL

The legitimacy of civil government needs to be complemented by another crucial biblical idea: civil government is provisional. “Provisional” refers to something set in place for a limited time and purpose until something greater arrives. Civil government is an important institution but will not endure forever. It is a valuable institution but not of highest value. It is penultimate rather than ultimate. Only the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, inchoately manifest now in the church and climactically revealed in the New Jerusalem, is of ultimate value and importance.

Civil government is legitimate but provisional. A Christian political theology ought to affirm both simultaneously.

Daniel 2 captures this point vividly. Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of an imposing image with head of gold, chest and arms of silver, midsection and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay. A stone of nonhuman origin struck the image and broke it into pieces, which the wind carried away without leaving a trace (2:31–35). God revealed the interpretation to Daniel. God had granted Nebuchadnezzar a great kingdom and made him the head of gold. After his kingdom, God would raise up other, weaker kingdoms, represented by the lower parts of the image. But in the days of the latter kings “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever” (2:36–45). Earthly kings and kingdoms are provisional. They come and go. But the eschatological kingdom of God will endure.

The New Testament texts considered in the previous section also communicate the provisionality of civil government. God commissions civil magistrates to promote justice by praising the good and punishing evildoers (Rom 13:3–4; 1 Pet 2:14), and in so doing they enable people to live peaceful and quiet lives (1 Tim 2:2). These are genuine goods, objects of thanksgiving for those who enjoy them. But the New Testament nowhere ascribes any greater task to civil government. Magistrates do not forgive sins, reconcile people with God, or usher in the new creation. Civil officials may bear the sword (Rom 13:4), but they do not wield the “keys of the kingdom,” which Christ entrusted to his church (Matt 16:18–19).

Thus it is no surprise that the New Testament steers Christians away from staking very much upon government institutions. Christians may avail themselves of civil justice, pray for their civil authorities, and even exercise political office, but they should always keep affairs of state in proper perspective. No affection Christians may feel toward their political communities can compare to their allegiance toward Christ’s heavenly kingdom. The Philippian Christians lived in a Roman colony, yet Paul declared that their “citizenship is in heaven” (Phil 3:20). Christians, already raised up with Christ, should “seek the things that are above,” not “things that are on earth”; their lives are “hidden with Christ in God” (Col 3:1–3). Long ago, Abraham, living by faith, “was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb 11:10). Abraham sought a “homeland,” “a better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Heb 11:14, 16). Thus believers today say, “Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Heb 13:12). Paul warns Christians about becoming absorbed in the affairs of the world, such as marriage or commerce, “for the present form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor 7:29–31). Christians do not avoid such affairs but retain a modest detachment and refuse to grant them all-consuming importance. They may have citizen status in their cities of residence, but they are sojourners and exiles on earth, as the saints of old (1 Pet 2:11; Heb 11:13).

Scripture also communicates the provisional characte...