The Gospel and Politics (Part 2)
June 11th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
In yesterday’s post, John MacArthur asked whether or not politics and legislation can provide the answer to America’s moral decline. His conclusion was that “America’s moral decline is a spiritual problem, not a political one, and its solution is the gospel, not partisan politics.” Today’s article expands on that thought, looking through history to see if political involvement has ever produced lasting transformation.
LESSONS FROM HISTORY
This is a lesson evangelicals ought to know from church history. Whenever the church has focused on evangelism and preaching the gospel, her influence has increased. When she has sought power by political, cultural, or military activism, she has damaged or spoiled her testimony.
The Crusades during the Middle Ages were waged for the purpose of regaining Christian control of the Holy Lands. Few believers today would argue that those efforts were fruitful. Even when the crusaders enjoyed military success, the church grew spiritually weaker and more worldly. Other religious wars and campaigns tinged with political motivation (such as the Thirty Years’ War in Europe, Cromwell’s revolution in England, and other skirmishes during the Reformation era) are all viewed with disapproval, or at best curiosity, by Christians today. And rightly so. The military and political ambitions of some of the Reformers turned out to be a weakness, and ultimately an impediment to the Reformation. On the other hand, the strength of the Reformation, and its enduring legacy, was derived from the fact that Reformation theology shone a bright spotlight on the way of salvation and brought clarity to the gospel.
Throughout Protestant history, those segments of the visible church that have turned their attention to social and political issues have also compromised sound doctrine and quickly declined in influence. Early modernists, for example, explicitly argued that social work and moral reform were more important than doctrinal precision, and their movement soon abandoned any semblance of Christianity whatsoever.
Today’s evangelical political activists seem to be unaware of how much their methodology parallels that of liberal Christians at the start of the twentieth century. Like those misguided idealists, contemporary evangelicals have become enamored with temporal issues at the expense of eternal values. Evangelical activists in essence are simply preaching a politically conservative version of the old social gospel, emphasizing social and cultural concerns above spiritual ones.
That kind of thinking fosters the view that government is either our ally (if it supports our special agenda) or our enemy (if it remains opposed or unresponsive to our voice). The political strategy becomes the focus of everything, as if the spiritual fortunes of God’s people rise or fall depending on who is in office. But the truth is that no human government can ultimately do anything either to advance or to thwart God’s kingdom. And the worst, most despotic worldly government in the end cannot halt the power of the Holy Spirit or the spread of God’s Word.
To gain a thoroughly biblical and Christian perspective on political involvement, we should take to heart the words of the British theologian Robert L. Ottley, delivered at Oxford University more than one hundred years ago:
The Old Testament may be studied. . .as an instructor in social righteousness. It exhibits the moral government of God as attested in his dealings with nations rather than with individuals; and it was their consciousness of the action and presence of God in history that made the prophets preachers, not merely to their countrymen, but to the world at large. . . .There is indeed significance in the fact that in spite of their ardent zeal for social reform they did not as a rule take part in political life or demand political reforms. They desired. . .not better institutions but better men. (Aspects of the Old Testament. The Bampton Lectures, 1897 [London: Longmans, 1898], 430-31)
(Continued tomorrow with “Lessons from Scripture”)
Sorry about the test - I’m having technical difficulties.
This post would seem to suggest Christians should avoid civil service and spend their time on spiritual matters such as growth and service.
I was wondering what PM’s position would be on Christians serving in government - considering the oaths they must take any the potential conflict gov’t service might have with their faith?
JM’s overall theme is quite sound: Preach the Gospel and don’t invest your life in the careers of unbelieving politicians.
I object to the characterization of the Crusades as attempts to regain “Christian control of the holy lands.”
JM’s Catholic/Protestant view of history neglects the long history of independent Bible believing Christians since the first century. The Roman Catholic Church was NOT Christian, but rather a persecutor. When Protestant reformers — of the Catholic Church — got control of various governments, they, in turn, persecuted non-conformists, especially independent Bible believing churches. A good intro to the subject would be David Cloud’s “A History of the Churches.”
What ya think, is Dr. Dave David Cloud?
David Cloud is a wack job, avoid him and his materials.
As Christians we can give glory to God’s name in whatever profession or calling God has placed us in. God has power over each individual soul, and for Christians, everything is spiritual. There is supposed to be no spiritual-secular dichotomy. A christian person is performing a spiritual activity even in what appears to be a secular undertaking. Therefore, a person can be a truly christian lawyer, a christian accountant, a christian plumber, a christian politician, and yes, a christian political activist. Our professional commitment, integrity and honesty is best testimony we can give the world about the greatness of our Savior. Its a disgrace if we speak of our christianity in the workplace and then perform our work with less professionalism or do a shabby job. The world looks and judges us and our religion not by how well we speak about our lives and how well we preach about our religion but in the way we live, how we treat our neighbors, how well we do our jobs. We should be reminded of the fornicating, drug-abusing and thieving preachers that have scandalized the church in recent years. They have appeared to have prioritized the “spiritual” matters: preaching every Sunday, writing christian books and articles, leading so called evangelical christian organizations, speaking in christian conventions and seminars, etc.
While it is true that “no human government can ultimately do anything either to advance or to thwart God’s kingdom” and that “the worst, most despotic worldly government in the end cannot halt the power of the Holy Spirit or the spread of God’s Word” it is certainly not helpful in advancing God’s kingdom and God’s word that christian preachers and leaders are exposed as hypocrites and criminals. But this is not even the point. The issue is the christian person’s involvement in political matters.
Apart from his or her right to actively participate in political matters, I submit a christian person has the duty to oppose injustice and oppression whenever and wherever such injustice and oppression is found, that so called “temporal issues” can be imbued with eternal values
and that christians and christianity will be passive, if not active, tools and accomplices if they remain silent in the face of injustice and oppression.
Thankyou June. I agree. We are a self governed people. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That’s why as Americans we must get involved. It’s our responsibility. We cannot avoid this responsibility. It’s ours whether we want it to be or not. It’s our responsibility before our families, our countrymen, and yes, before God.
This may be extreme, but it makes the point very well. If a woman is being raped, should we pass by and do nothing? After all, her attacker will not have a change of heart if we throw him off of her. Our goal is to preach the Gospel only, no? Perhaps we should leave him be and hope to run into him at the coffee shop later that evening and then we can witness to him, and maybe, he won’t rape any more.
Likewise is this argument pitting the preaching of the Gospel against political involvment of any kind. Within a narrow context, I agree that if there is a wrong motive, then there will be a error as a Christian. On the other hand, to use that narrow context to suggest that any political activism is wrong, is, well, in my opinion, very wrong. Most people do not get involved in politics to change peoples hearts.
God mostly answers prayer through providence. When we see Him face to face, we can ask Him what happened to our Country. He’s going to tell us that while we were waiting for lightning bolts to shoot from the sky, we ignored the fact that He provided us the means to change things for the better by giving us the freedom to get involved, if for no other reason, than through making needed information available, and He gave us the right to vote. A non vote is a choice also.
I’ve probably benefited more than anyone from John’s ministry, but I disgree with him on this.