Yes, the prophetic role of the ekklesia in relation to the state. That's it. Amen. We lose this we lose our soul, and we end up in bed with Babylon. The Lamb who is slain is on the throne; we have one citizenship, one allegiance.
I agree that "being the church" is a political vision/political theology. But I think as it relates to political theology in a USA context, we can hardly imagine anymore what that might be. I think we do well to pay attention to the Black church here, e.g. the history of the AME church. Remember the words of Frederick Douglass? “I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial, and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels.”
I do hear some white protestant Christians, who don't err toward fundamentalist extremes of right or left and maybe have that anabaptist/separatist spirit, talk about "staying out of politics or Washington", but to me it comes across as a statement of privilege. Is that fair to say? I see that in myself, a desire to pull away from the tension/chaos/fight (perhaps the Essene temptation). But I also have that American "activist" spirit that wants to "do something" and "change something" for better (perhaps the Zealot temptation). This is where the proof texting and partisanship can kick in -- my vision of the beloved community or neighborhood looks like. I also hear some critiquing "white evangelicalism" (myself included) saying it is just a socio-political movement that has sought a theological justification for its efforts. But perhaps if we are honest, all "American" denominations are sociopolitical movements that have popped up in the democracy-driven society we inhabit.
This all relates to the bigger question of "civilization building" that's been driven by Christianity in the West for 1700 years. I wonder if we're at the tapering tail end of that age. Will a new civilization emerge from the void we are in? Certainly see plenty of fighting for that with white Christian nationalist "concepts" and "values" that are stripped of actual obedience-to-Christ.
Thank you as always, Richard. Appreciate your voice.
I find it disturbing and off putting that the branch of the Stone Campbell Movement to which I have adhered for decades now has no carefully constructed theology. My wanderings have taken me into various places and spaces, but the one that resonates most deeply was the United Methodist Church. Their theology of voting adheres to one key principle with multiple applications. If I vote out of a theological from that is oriented toward “the common good,” how would I vote and to what issues of the common good would that one vote be realized? That moves the vote from that of my narcissistic self into one that has a wider orientation, such has, how will it impact the least of these? Clean water for all? Safe streets for all? Human rights for all?
It doesn’t answer all questions and opens the voter up to other issues, but I do find it curiously comforting and future oriented.
I wonder if Christians living in countries with a more-than-two-party system of government struggle as much as we do. And I wonder if Christians living countries that have a Prime Minister with decidedly less power than our President are better able to separate the God who anointed Kings in the Old Testament and the coalitions that determine who will be Prime Minister. We are set up to view our President as God's anointed, which is dangerous. In other words, our country does a very poor job of creating a "place where it's easier to be good". Or holy.
A Coherent Political Theology of Prophetic Witness
At the heart of a coherent political theology lies the tension between divine sovereignty and human political systems, coupled with the church’s role as a prophetic witness to the Kingdom of God. This theology is not rooted in partisan allegiance but in a transcendent commitment to justice, mercy, and love. Below is an articulation of such a political theology, grounded in the belief in God and the principles of prophetic engagement:
---
### **1. The Sovereignty of God and the Limits of Human Power**
Human political systems, no matter how powerful or sophisticated, are ultimately limited and contingent. They are subject to corruption, failure, and the frailty of human nature. A political theology must begin with the acknowledgment that God’s sovereignty transcends all earthly powers. The state, while ordained by God to maintain order and justice (Romans 13:1-7), is not ultimate. The church’s primary allegiance is to the Kingdom of God, which stands in judgment over all human institutions. This recognition frees the church from idolizing any political system or party and calls it to a higher accountability.
---
### **2. The Prophetic Vocation of the Church**
The church is called to be a prophetic witness, speaking truth to power and embodying the values of the Kingdom of God. This vocation is not partisan but transcendent. It challenges all systems and ideologies—whether on the left or the right—that fail to align with justice, mercy, and love. The prophetic voice of the church must rise above the partisan shouting match, refusing to be co-opted by any political agenda. Instead, it must critique all powers, holding them accountable to the standards of God’s Kingdom.
---
### **3. The Danger of Partisanship**
Partisanship undermines the church’s prophetic vocation. When Christians align too closely with a particular political party, they risk becoming mouthpieces for partisan agendas rather than ambassadors of the Kingdom of God. This alignment dilutes the church’s moral authority and silences its ability to speak prophetically. The church must resist the temptation to conflate the Gospel with any political ideology, recognizing that no party fully embodies the values of the Kingdom. The church’s loyalty must always be to God, not to a political platform.
---
### **4. A Politics of Neighbor-Love**
At the heart of Christian political engagement is the command to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31). This love is not abstract but concrete, manifesting in actions that seek justice, care for the vulnerable, and promote the common good. Political theology must prioritize policies and practices that reflect this ethic of neighbor-love, whether they align with left-leaning or right-leaning platforms. The church’s prophetic voice should advocate for policies that protect the marginalized, uphold human dignity, and foster peace. This includes addressing issues such as poverty, racism, environmental stewardship, and the sanctity of life.
---
### **5. The Church as a Counter-Cultural Community**
The church is called to be a counter-cultural community that models an alternative way of life. In a world fractured by division and partisanship, the church must demonstrate unity, reconciliation, and hope. This means fostering spaces where people of diverse political views can come together in shared worship and mission. The church’s witness is not merely in what it says but in how it lives—embodying the values of the Kingdom in its communal life. By living as a community of grace, forgiveness, and justice, the church becomes a signpost of God’s Kingdom in the world.
---
### **6. Speaking for God, Not for Parties**
The church’s prophetic voice must be distinct from partisan rhetoric. It should not merely echo the talking points of the left or the right but should instead speak for God, calling all people and systems to repentance, justice, and love. This requires courage, humility, and a willingness to be misunderstood or criticized by both sides. The church must resist the temptation to seek power or influence within the state and instead focus on its mission to bear witness to the Gospel. Its role is not to rule but to serve, not to dominate but to illuminate.
---
### **7. Hope in the Kingdom of God**
The church’s hope is not in political victories or policy changes but in the ultimate triumph of the Kingdom of God. This hope sustains the church’s prophetic witness, even in the face of failure or opposition. The church’s political theology must be eschatological, pointing beyond the present to the fulfillment of God’s promises. While the church works for justice and peace in the here and now, it does so with the assurance that God’s Kingdom will ultimately prevail. This hope frees the church from despair and empowers it to engage in the world with confidence and courage.
---
### **Practical Implications for Political Engagement**
1. **Critical Distance from Partisan Politics**
Christians should engage in politics with a critical distance, refusing to equate their faith with any party or ideology. This means voting, advocating, and participating in ways that reflect the values of the Kingdom, even if it means challenging one’s own political tribe. The church must resist the temptation to become a chaplain to any political power.
2. **Advocacy for Justice and the Common Good**
The church should actively advocate for policies that promote justice, peace, and the flourishing of all people. This includes addressing issues like poverty, racism, environmental stewardship, and the protection of life at all stages. The church’s advocacy must be rooted in the Gospel, not in partisan agendas.
3. **Dialogue and Reconciliation**
The church should foster dialogue and reconciliation across political divides, modeling a way of engaging with difference that is rooted in love and respect. This includes creating spaces for honest conversation and mutual understanding. The church’s unity in Christ must transcend political divisions.
4. **Prophetic Critique and Hope**
The church must be willing to critique all systems of power, including those aligned with its own members’ political preferences. At the same time, it should offer a message of hope, pointing to the transformative power of God’s love and justice. The church’s prophetic voice must be both critical and constructive, calling for repentance and offering hope.
---
### **Conclusion**
A coherent political theology rooted in the sovereignty of God and the prophetic vocation of the church resists the allure of partisanship and embraces a higher calling. By speaking for God rather than for parties, the church can bear witness to the Kingdom of God, offering a vision of justice, reconciliation, and hope that transcends the divisions of our time. In doing so, it fulfills its calling to be a light to the nations and a sign of God’s redeeming love. The church’s political engagement must always point beyond itself to the ultimate hope of God’s Kingdom, where justice and peace will reign forever.
It seems the reality of our political engagement these days is that our political affiliations have more formative power in our lives than Christian identity. Perhaps the place for the prophetic voice to start is in the church.
You appear to be making the distinction between political engagement through participation vs engagement through a prophetic voice. Conflicts of interests can conflate the two ways, without any doubt as you advise. Jesus had the same choice - see the temptation of Jesus. He spent 40 days in the wilderness trying to decide. He chose the way of the prophetic voice. He (and the Stoics) were up against the narcissistic religious Roman cults of the day. I believe that when Constantine made Christianity the State’s religion (the Christian Nationalism of that day). The narcissistic form of Roman state religion continued uninterrupted, in the name of Jesus, to this day. Narcissism is a religion and the narcissist is its god and the followers its priests and worshippers. Engage through participation or through the prophetic voice, but know precisely what you are engaging.
In The Religious Case Against Belief, James Carse writes about the ironies of evil. “No one is evil by choice, willingly and consciously, but only by the desire to eliminate it elsewhere…. What can we make of this except that evil finds its perfect home in our own belief system and the moral certainty that goes with it?”
This speaks to Dr. Beck’s concern about the conflict between the prophetic voice and partisanship. There is such a fine line one must walk.
And what, indeed, is evil. None of the religious or secular attempts to explain and define evil are ultimately successful. Every one arises from a particular moral or ideological perspective.
For Carse, what is missing from all of these definitions is the particularity of experienced evil.
“This is where the focus should lie, not on definitions but on the irreversible damage it does to human beings. Quite plainly, we know evil when we experience it or see it done to others.”
This insight reframes the entire matter. It is not the motives or intentions of the perpetrators. It is the harm done.
The prophetic voice calls out the particularity of evil. It does not debate moral or ideological positions. It says, “Look here! See who is being harmed and how. Who is being neglected or abused and how.”
We do not choose according to parties or ideologies. We choose—we must choose—according to where healing and renewal are needed.
Apart from his abhorrence of instrumental music during worship, I’m really taking a liking to David Lipscomb’s political views –
“Human government, the embodied effort of man to rule the world without God, ruled over by "the prince of this world," the devil. Its mission is to execute wrath and vengeance here on earth. Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven.”
Thank you for your observations on Christian commitments and partisanship. I’ll add that as a Christian who works in healthcare, I believe that telling truths based on quality evidence/science is also a Christian responsibility. Ironically, it’s the atheist/agnostic scientific community that helped to heighten my awareness of political bias. Here’s an example.
I’ve recently signed up on the recommendation of frienemies at Regent College Vancouver. I will continue to read your work. One this post, I believe there is a deeper point, which I will offer but with the kind note, I think you a worthwhile read.
Yes, the prophetic role of the ekklesia in relation to the state. That's it. Amen. We lose this we lose our soul, and we end up in bed with Babylon. The Lamb who is slain is on the throne; we have one citizenship, one allegiance.
I agree that "being the church" is a political vision/political theology. But I think as it relates to political theology in a USA context, we can hardly imagine anymore what that might be. I think we do well to pay attention to the Black church here, e.g. the history of the AME church. Remember the words of Frederick Douglass? “I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial, and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels.”
I do hear some white protestant Christians, who don't err toward fundamentalist extremes of right or left and maybe have that anabaptist/separatist spirit, talk about "staying out of politics or Washington", but to me it comes across as a statement of privilege. Is that fair to say? I see that in myself, a desire to pull away from the tension/chaos/fight (perhaps the Essene temptation). But I also have that American "activist" spirit that wants to "do something" and "change something" for better (perhaps the Zealot temptation). This is where the proof texting and partisanship can kick in -- my vision of the beloved community or neighborhood looks like. I also hear some critiquing "white evangelicalism" (myself included) saying it is just a socio-political movement that has sought a theological justification for its efforts. But perhaps if we are honest, all "American" denominations are sociopolitical movements that have popped up in the democracy-driven society we inhabit.
This all relates to the bigger question of "civilization building" that's been driven by Christianity in the West for 1700 years. I wonder if we're at the tapering tail end of that age. Will a new civilization emerge from the void we are in? Certainly see plenty of fighting for that with white Christian nationalist "concepts" and "values" that are stripped of actual obedience-to-Christ.
Thank you as always, Richard. Appreciate your voice.
I find it disturbing and off putting that the branch of the Stone Campbell Movement to which I have adhered for decades now has no carefully constructed theology. My wanderings have taken me into various places and spaces, but the one that resonates most deeply was the United Methodist Church. Their theology of voting adheres to one key principle with multiple applications. If I vote out of a theological from that is oriented toward “the common good,” how would I vote and to what issues of the common good would that one vote be realized? That moves the vote from that of my narcissistic self into one that has a wider orientation, such has, how will it impact the least of these? Clean water for all? Safe streets for all? Human rights for all?
It doesn’t answer all questions and opens the voter up to other issues, but I do find it curiously comforting and future oriented.
Waymon Hinson
“ …vote out of a theological frame that is oriented toward the common good.”
Yes!
I wonder if Christians living in countries with a more-than-two-party system of government struggle as much as we do. And I wonder if Christians living countries that have a Prime Minister with decidedly less power than our President are better able to separate the God who anointed Kings in the Old Testament and the coalitions that determine who will be Prime Minister. We are set up to view our President as God's anointed, which is dangerous. In other words, our country does a very poor job of creating a "place where it's easier to be good". Or holy.
A Coherent Political Theology of Prophetic Witness
At the heart of a coherent political theology lies the tension between divine sovereignty and human political systems, coupled with the church’s role as a prophetic witness to the Kingdom of God. This theology is not rooted in partisan allegiance but in a transcendent commitment to justice, mercy, and love. Below is an articulation of such a political theology, grounded in the belief in God and the principles of prophetic engagement:
---
### **1. The Sovereignty of God and the Limits of Human Power**
Human political systems, no matter how powerful or sophisticated, are ultimately limited and contingent. They are subject to corruption, failure, and the frailty of human nature. A political theology must begin with the acknowledgment that God’s sovereignty transcends all earthly powers. The state, while ordained by God to maintain order and justice (Romans 13:1-7), is not ultimate. The church’s primary allegiance is to the Kingdom of God, which stands in judgment over all human institutions. This recognition frees the church from idolizing any political system or party and calls it to a higher accountability.
---
### **2. The Prophetic Vocation of the Church**
The church is called to be a prophetic witness, speaking truth to power and embodying the values of the Kingdom of God. This vocation is not partisan but transcendent. It challenges all systems and ideologies—whether on the left or the right—that fail to align with justice, mercy, and love. The prophetic voice of the church must rise above the partisan shouting match, refusing to be co-opted by any political agenda. Instead, it must critique all powers, holding them accountable to the standards of God’s Kingdom.
---
### **3. The Danger of Partisanship**
Partisanship undermines the church’s prophetic vocation. When Christians align too closely with a particular political party, they risk becoming mouthpieces for partisan agendas rather than ambassadors of the Kingdom of God. This alignment dilutes the church’s moral authority and silences its ability to speak prophetically. The church must resist the temptation to conflate the Gospel with any political ideology, recognizing that no party fully embodies the values of the Kingdom. The church’s loyalty must always be to God, not to a political platform.
---
### **4. A Politics of Neighbor-Love**
At the heart of Christian political engagement is the command to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31). This love is not abstract but concrete, manifesting in actions that seek justice, care for the vulnerable, and promote the common good. Political theology must prioritize policies and practices that reflect this ethic of neighbor-love, whether they align with left-leaning or right-leaning platforms. The church’s prophetic voice should advocate for policies that protect the marginalized, uphold human dignity, and foster peace. This includes addressing issues such as poverty, racism, environmental stewardship, and the sanctity of life.
---
### **5. The Church as a Counter-Cultural Community**
The church is called to be a counter-cultural community that models an alternative way of life. In a world fractured by division and partisanship, the church must demonstrate unity, reconciliation, and hope. This means fostering spaces where people of diverse political views can come together in shared worship and mission. The church’s witness is not merely in what it says but in how it lives—embodying the values of the Kingdom in its communal life. By living as a community of grace, forgiveness, and justice, the church becomes a signpost of God’s Kingdom in the world.
---
### **6. Speaking for God, Not for Parties**
The church’s prophetic voice must be distinct from partisan rhetoric. It should not merely echo the talking points of the left or the right but should instead speak for God, calling all people and systems to repentance, justice, and love. This requires courage, humility, and a willingness to be misunderstood or criticized by both sides. The church must resist the temptation to seek power or influence within the state and instead focus on its mission to bear witness to the Gospel. Its role is not to rule but to serve, not to dominate but to illuminate.
---
### **7. Hope in the Kingdom of God**
The church’s hope is not in political victories or policy changes but in the ultimate triumph of the Kingdom of God. This hope sustains the church’s prophetic witness, even in the face of failure or opposition. The church’s political theology must be eschatological, pointing beyond the present to the fulfillment of God’s promises. While the church works for justice and peace in the here and now, it does so with the assurance that God’s Kingdom will ultimately prevail. This hope frees the church from despair and empowers it to engage in the world with confidence and courage.
---
### **Practical Implications for Political Engagement**
1. **Critical Distance from Partisan Politics**
Christians should engage in politics with a critical distance, refusing to equate their faith with any party or ideology. This means voting, advocating, and participating in ways that reflect the values of the Kingdom, even if it means challenging one’s own political tribe. The church must resist the temptation to become a chaplain to any political power.
2. **Advocacy for Justice and the Common Good**
The church should actively advocate for policies that promote justice, peace, and the flourishing of all people. This includes addressing issues like poverty, racism, environmental stewardship, and the protection of life at all stages. The church’s advocacy must be rooted in the Gospel, not in partisan agendas.
3. **Dialogue and Reconciliation**
The church should foster dialogue and reconciliation across political divides, modeling a way of engaging with difference that is rooted in love and respect. This includes creating spaces for honest conversation and mutual understanding. The church’s unity in Christ must transcend political divisions.
4. **Prophetic Critique and Hope**
The church must be willing to critique all systems of power, including those aligned with its own members’ political preferences. At the same time, it should offer a message of hope, pointing to the transformative power of God’s love and justice. The church’s prophetic voice must be both critical and constructive, calling for repentance and offering hope.
---
### **Conclusion**
A coherent political theology rooted in the sovereignty of God and the prophetic vocation of the church resists the allure of partisanship and embraces a higher calling. By speaking for God rather than for parties, the church can bear witness to the Kingdom of God, offering a vision of justice, reconciliation, and hope that transcends the divisions of our time. In doing so, it fulfills its calling to be a light to the nations and a sign of God’s redeeming love. The church’s political engagement must always point beyond itself to the ultimate hope of God’s Kingdom, where justice and peace will reign forever.
It seems the reality of our political engagement these days is that our political affiliations have more formative power in our lives than Christian identity. Perhaps the place for the prophetic voice to start is in the church.
Yes!
You appear to be making the distinction between political engagement through participation vs engagement through a prophetic voice. Conflicts of interests can conflate the two ways, without any doubt as you advise. Jesus had the same choice - see the temptation of Jesus. He spent 40 days in the wilderness trying to decide. He chose the way of the prophetic voice. He (and the Stoics) were up against the narcissistic religious Roman cults of the day. I believe that when Constantine made Christianity the State’s religion (the Christian Nationalism of that day). The narcissistic form of Roman state religion continued uninterrupted, in the name of Jesus, to this day. Narcissism is a religion and the narcissist is its god and the followers its priests and worshippers. Engage through participation or through the prophetic voice, but know precisely what you are engaging.
In The Religious Case Against Belief, James Carse writes about the ironies of evil. “No one is evil by choice, willingly and consciously, but only by the desire to eliminate it elsewhere…. What can we make of this except that evil finds its perfect home in our own belief system and the moral certainty that goes with it?”
This speaks to Dr. Beck’s concern about the conflict between the prophetic voice and partisanship. There is such a fine line one must walk.
And what, indeed, is evil. None of the religious or secular attempts to explain and define evil are ultimately successful. Every one arises from a particular moral or ideological perspective.
For Carse, what is missing from all of these definitions is the particularity of experienced evil.
“This is where the focus should lie, not on definitions but on the irreversible damage it does to human beings. Quite plainly, we know evil when we experience it or see it done to others.”
This insight reframes the entire matter. It is not the motives or intentions of the perpetrators. It is the harm done.
The prophetic voice calls out the particularity of evil. It does not debate moral or ideological positions. It says, “Look here! See who is being harmed and how. Who is being neglected or abused and how.”
We do not choose according to parties or ideologies. We choose—we must choose—according to where healing and renewal are needed.
Apart from his abhorrence of instrumental music during worship, I’m really taking a liking to David Lipscomb’s political views –
“Human government, the embodied effort of man to rule the world without God, ruled over by "the prince of this world," the devil. Its mission is to execute wrath and vengeance here on earth. Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven.”
He’s definitely got my vote!
Alas, time to retire the "Gott mit uns" belt.
Thank you for your observations on Christian commitments and partisanship. I’ll add that as a Christian who works in healthcare, I believe that telling truths based on quality evidence/science is also a Christian responsibility. Ironically, it’s the atheist/agnostic scientific community that helped to heighten my awareness of political bias. Here’s an example.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/rfk-jr-the-ecumenical-denier-embraces-anti-science-from-the-right-and-the-left/
This is important and helpful! I do find myself in "both sides" purgatory much of the time. Maybe it isn't purgatory after all.
I’ve recently signed up on the recommendation of frienemies at Regent College Vancouver. I will continue to read your work. One this post, I believe there is a deeper point, which I will offer but with the kind note, I think you a worthwhile read.