The other day, I commented on a post (always dangerous) that was questioning a Christian making a political ally out of an atheist. I’m presuming that this was a sub-post, that is a post about someone without explicitly making mention of them. My comment was that instead of questioning whether a Christian should be making an atheist their political ally, should Christians be making political allies at all in order to further their cause. Now of course this brings about an emotional response because we as Christians understand that we are living in a fallen world, and we understand that the only solution in this fallen world is Christ. Where the disagreement comes is how or by what means this solution of Christ is presented or implemented in the world we might say. This has literally been a controversy marring Christianity from its infancy.
If you’re a Christian, why do you have political allies. That says more about the movement
At the heart of this controversy is none other than the relationship between church and state which we have been studying here over a number of years, especially with the study on the development of the universal church (see Doctrinal page). If we recall briefly, in the period from the 2nd/3rd centuries into the fourth century and culminating with the Council of Constantinople a number of political alliances were made over the years, sometimes these were positive but by-in-large the situation always degrades and the partnership comes back to bite, not the state, but the church (using this term in its institutional meaning). When you press someone to examine the New Testament in order to find support for the church in general and even Christians individually making political alliances the evidence is wanting. Acts 23 was cited back to me as an example, but is that really about Paul making a political alliance? Hardly. Those in favor of Christian political alliances then must resort to the Old Testament for their support, as Esther was cited to me by another commentor. Again, this is not exactly evidence that Christians today, and certainly not the church collectively, should ally themselves with the state. However, the evidence in the Old Testament is replete with God commanding Israel NOT to make political alliances with other countries.
Now here we need to pause briefly to understand the relationship between Isreal and today as well as the nations. Israel isn’t representative of modern America, or any other country for that matter. So an application that countries should not make political alliances with other countries is not in view here. The reference that I’m making is that Israel as a whole was under the divine leadership of God, it was for all intents and purposes a Theocracy, that is a government under the rule of God. Christians in the Kingdom of Christ today are under this same rule, Christ is their King and His law is their constitution. It too is a theocracy, or better a Christocracy, but it is not limited to geographical boundaries or geopolitical governments. This is not at all to say that the church, institutionally, is to be equivocated with Israel. No, that is not the point. The point is that God had an exclusive call and rule over His people in the Old Testament, just as He does today. The command against alliances was that of going outside of His rule and authority, indeed His very sovereignty and providence, for the purpose of political alliances, favor, and expediency. That same warning exists for us today as the temptation to turn to worldly governments and political leaders in order to make things better for Christians, i.e. God’s people, has been an ever-present threat throughout history, as we have already seen. To think that by electing one individual over another is the way to save our country and restore morality is fleshly. Yet Christian organizations, individuals with large platforms, churches, etc. were all making the same claims that the only way to turn things around was through a political alliance, not, as it were, through the proclamation of the Gospel which have .
While any number of commands and warnings could be consulted and meditated on, I found one particular warning especially enlightening this morning after the social media encounter.
“Ah, stubborn children,” declares the Lord,
Isaiah 30:1-3
“who carry out a plan, but not mine,
and who make an alliance, but not of my Spirit,
that they may add sin to sin;
2 who set out to go down to Egypt,
without asking for my direction,
to take refuge in the protection of Pharaoh
and to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt!
3 Therefore shall the protection of Pharaoh turn to your shame,
and the shelter in the shadow of Egypt to your humiliation.
A recurring theme for both Israel and Judah was their desire for political alliances. Even before this, we can recall instances where Abraham was explicitly told not to go to Egypt, when Jacob left the Promised Land for Egypt in the midst of famine, and how Israel came into slavery when there arose a Pharoah who did not know or remember Joseph. In our passage, the prophet Isaiah is the first of the prophets to warn of pending exile, specifically at the hands of the Assyrians in and around the 8th century BC. Here, as per usual, Israel sought to manufacture their own escape from the troubles that lie ahead and saw in Egypt the opportunity for a political alliance to thwart Assyria. Rather than turning to the Lord, they sought political expediency, earthly support, the addition of (former) empirical power. In the passage, God explicitly states that He will flip the alliance around on them causing the protection which they sought from Pharoah to turn to shame and the shelter from Egypt their humiliation.
Today, as in the social media interaction above, so many want to find a political solution out of the messes that this country, indeed the world, find themselves in. Legislation, not regeneration, is the answer. When this happens, the trap is sprung for Christians to look towards politicians or the government itself to deliver them from the ills of society and ultimately win the culture war. But it is a gospel-less fight. At best, it establishes an order of Christian morality which leads to the same broad-road destruction as rank paganism. At worse, it sets up Christians to receive retribution for their political alliances, a result that has been historically documented, including in our reference from Isaiah above.
If we believe in the gospel at all, then it is for all people, not those who just claim to be conservative politically. We are prone to easy solutions that we can attain in our flesh. Meanwhile we are adverse to the hard work, the time and effort it takes, to turn the world upside down through the power of the Holy Spirit in the proclamation of the gospel to sinners by simple, uneducated men who have spent time with Christ.
May it not be turned back on our own heads in shame and humiliation.
SDG
