This week, we are addressing the question of how
followers of Jesus should view the role that government has and how we are to
engage government as followers of Jesus. To answer these questions, we are
going to spend part of our time looking at the various positions that followers
of Jesus have advocated for when it comes to how followers of Jesus are to view
the role that government has and how followers of Jesus are to engage
government. We will then look at a section of a letter that is recorded for us
in the Old Testament of the Bible that I believe provides a timeless and true
answer to how followers of Jesus are to view the role of government and engage
government. I would like for us to view these different views on a continuum,
or spectrum, so to speak.
Yesterday, we looked at one end of the continuum or
spectrum would be those who would advocate for what could be described as the
view that government should compel religion. Proponents of this view would
advocate that civil government should promote or compel its citizens to support
or follow one particular religion. We also took a step to the left on this continuum
or spectrum, at the view that would advocate for Christians to flood the
political and government arenas as a means to bring political and cultural
change. Wayne Grudem refers to this view as the “Do politics not evangelism”
position. This position maintains that if Christians were able to be in
positions of political and government power, they would be able to advocate for
the passage of legislation that place Christian principles and practices into
the forefront of culture in a way that would bring cultural change.
However, I believe that those who advocated for
Christians to flood the political and government arenas as a means to bring
cultural change with the “Do politics not evangelism” position missed two major
Biblical themes. First, has the concept of legislating morality ever worked? Second,
many who advocated for Christians to flood the political and government arenas
as a means to bring cultural change with the “Do politics not evangelism”
position ended up placing their hope in politics. However, the message and
teachings of Jesus make it abundantly clear that there is only one object that
we are to place our hope in; and that object is not politics or government, that
object is Jesus. And unfortunately, the misplaced hope of the moral majority
movement and others like it in the 70’s through the 90’s turned off an entire
generation to the idea of church.
Today, I would like for us to look at the other end
of the spectrum, so to speak when it comes to what followers of Jesus have
advocated for when it comes to how followers of Jesus are to view the role that
government has and how followers of Jesus are to engage government. On the
other end of the continuum or spectrum would be those who would advocate for
what could be described as the view that government should exclude religion.
Proponents of this view would advocate that we should exclude religion from
government and politics.
However, there are several problems with this view.
First, the view that government should exclude religion fails to make a
distinction between the reason for a law and the content of the law. While many
of our laws have religious reasons behind them, that does not mean that these
laws, in themselves, establish religion. For example, all religious systems
have a law against murder, but a law against murder does not establish that
religious system. In addition, this view changes freedom of religion to freedom
from religion and wrongly restricts freedom of religion and freedom of speech. As
we discovered earlier, the idea of separation of church and state was about
government not establishing a state religion, not to keep religion out of
public discourse.
If we were to take a step to the right from the view
that government should exclude religion, we would find those who hold the view that,
as followers of Jesus, we should disengage from government and politics to live
as outsiders. This view leads what Wayne Grudem refers to as the to “do
evangelism, not politics” view. This view would say that we should not engage
the culture in the political process; instead, we should just tell others about
Jesus. This view would say that we need to keep the culture out of the church
and focus on following Jesus until He returns.
However, there are several problems with "do evangelism
not politics" view. The first problem is that following Jesus is not
simply about getting into Heaven. Following Jesus is about shining the light of
the kingdom of heaven into dark places and spaces and we cannot do that if we
simply remove ourselves from conversations about culture and politics. In
addition, those who advocate the "do evangelism not politics" view can
tend to make a false distinction between evangelism and discipleship. You see,
evangelism and discipleship are not separate processes. Instead, evangelism is
just the first step in discipleship.
Also, the message and teachings of Jesus call us to
be salt and light that transforms our culture by engaging our culture in a way
that helps to improve the culture. Another question that arises from this view
is if the church should just do evangelism and not get involved in the culture
or politics, then what parts of the Bible are we not going to preach about so we
only talk about the gospel? What parts of the Bible are we going to ignore so
that we can only talk about evangelism?
Finally, this view overlooks the reality that God
divinely designed and established both the church and government to restrain
evil. Think of it this way: If we are just supposed to talk about evangelism;
if the church is just about bringing people to Jesus, then what are the good
works that Paul talks about in Ephesians 2:10?
You see, when we read the letters that make up the
Bible, we discover that when a nation experienced genuine and lasting cultural
change, three things happened. First, the people within that nation experience
a change in their hearts that result in them pursuing good and not evil.
Second, the people within that nation experience a change in their minds so
that their moral convictions align more closely with the
message and teaching of Jesus. Third, the people within that nation make a
change in their laws in a way that promotes the good for people and punishes
the evil of people.
With that in mind, how can people experience a heart
transformation that only comes through the claims of Christ and the message of
the gospel if we are on the end of the continuum or spectrum that advocates
government exclusion of religion or that followers of Jesus just focus on
politics and not evangelism? How can people experience a change in thinking
that results in moral convictions that line up with the message and teachings
of Jesus if followers of Jesus just remain in a holy huddle and do not engage
culture? How can the government of a nation have laws that promote the good for
people and punish the evil of people as God designed it if followers of Jesus
are not engaging in politics or government?
I believe that the view that government should
compel religion or the "do politics not evangelism" views where
followers of Jesus place their hope in government by attempting to legislate
morality does not line up with the message and teachings of Jesus. And I
believe that the view that government should exclude religion and the "do
evangelism not politics" view that followers of Jesus should disengage
from government and politics to live as outsiders focused solely on the gospel does
not line up with the message and teachings of Jesus. Instead, I would like for
us to look to a third way, a way that seems to be repeated throughout the
letters that make up the Bible. And that way is what Wayne Grudem refers to as
Christian influence.
We see the way of Christian influence revealed for
us in a section of a letter that is recorded for us in the Old Testament of the
Bible called the book of Jeremiah. Friday, we will look at this section
together...
No comments:
Post a Comment