RSSAn uncomfortable spiritual aspect of politics?
While fearing that I will be called a kook, I think it is important to raise a question that has not been discussed.
Is there an uncomfortable spiritual diminsion to politics that has not been noted? The book of Revelation speaks of the Beast (at least one of them) as a civil power under the spiritual influence of the Dark One and allied with false religion. As I read history, and understand eschatology, I do not think this Beastly system is relegated to Caesar Nero or a final end times ruler. Rather, I understand the beast to include all of those various civil powers who have degernated into Satanic monsters. Occult facination within Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany suggest that political evil has a spiritual side.
Does this implies that politics is a black and white, zero sum game? I do not think so. Ordinary politics must remain the art of the possible. Still, it does raise some uncomfortable questions for advocates of A Secular Faith, no?
D Hart
April 17th, 2007 at 7:39 am
I may not be the psalm-singer that Bill is, but I thought the theme of many psalms was not to put our trust in princes or earthly rulers because our help is in the name of the Lord. The demonic possibilities of statecraft is no sufficient reason to Christianize politics. The point of the psalms would appear to be the reverse — lower your expectations of the state and keep them really low, whether pagan or Christian, Republican or Democrat.
At the same time, let’s not forget Daniel who seemed to prosper in an empire that had spiritual influences (and not good ones) all over the place. These idolatrous links did not, as I suggest in the conclusion to A Secular Faith, prevent him from holding public office or from seeking political reform.
sixteenninety
April 17th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Is it too simplistic to infer that you are saying that if political machinations are given over to overt satanic powers, the converse of that must needs imply political entities given over to overt Christian powers? By “given over†I do not mean “controlled entirely byâ€.
nasteffe
April 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Darryl,
You’re exactly right that Daniel (and his friends as well) did not let the pervading pagan pride to stop them from standing up from the Lord’s will. They took part in the government. At the same point, it seems that the book of Daniel shows several examples of God and politics trying to mess around with each other.
When Nebuchadrezzar says
“Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that utters blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins; for there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.”
We don’t see Daniel’s friends standing up and telling him off for overstepping his bounds as a national ruler. Instead they, as those who are favored by God, are promoted and given high political positions in the province (not because they keep God out of their political actions and reactions, but because they keep him at the center).
If God is the Lord we trust, this doesn’t mean that we should step out of politics, or step in with illusions of grandeur, but instead to follow in Jesus’ footsteps: go to the point of conflict (in this case, politics), speak the truth, die, and trust that the answer is God’s not ours. Isn’t this the humility we’re looking for?
D Hart
April 19th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Nasteffe: so is Nebuchadnezzar’s decree something you’d like to see applied to Baptists and Mormons? If you are unprepared for that sort of approach to religion and politics, aren’t you really closer to the liberal side of the street with me?
W.H. Chellis
April 19th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
To drag us back to the point of the post. What binds the demons? How are the politics of the beast transformed?
I wonder if the neutral secular faith of DGH could exist except in a nation that had enjoyed a long Christian heritage.
No, the role of the church is not political. Yet, when the gospel is preached the old gods loose their power. The silver smiths get angry because no one is buying their wares. The temples are empty because their gods have no more juice. Christ has bound the strong man and Satan can no longer deceive the nations.
Sure, the church does flourish under persecution of beastly governments. But, it seems to me, such persecuting beasts end up loosing their grips on peoples transformed by the power of the gospel sealed by blood.
What of eras when the church enjoys respite? What about when nations are government by Christian gentlement rather than beasts? (Should we not prefer it? At least at some selfish level if not for the glory of Christ?) Was Charles Hodge less a Christian than J.Gresham Machen because he did not suffer for his faith? I am not sure I have no much suffering for that matter, has anyone here? Minor inconvinience, yes. Loss of contact with old friends, yes. Glaring stares from God haters, sure. Forced to serve as Pastor a long way from my homeland, indeed. But hostile persecution? Not so much.
Persecution is an aspect of church life in this age. But, I think, so is transformation, Christ honoring cultural and political renewal, and deformation leading back to the dark abyss. Which is best to live within, who can say? But I am pretty happy not to be hunted.
Nick Steffen
April 19th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Darryl,
As I mentioned in my former post, our Lord doesn’t ‘do’ power like Nebuchadrezzar did. Our Lord led by sacrificing, by submitting, by dying. Surely this is unlike the typical methods of politics we all know and hate so much (especially unlike Nebuchadrezzar’s well-meaning, though rather wrong-headed approach to honoring God). I probably am much closer to your position than I am ready to yet admit, but its because I think (naively, perhaps) there is another way to ‘do’ power, relationship, etc… This is probably why I believe that Christ’s own transformative power was not limited to individuals but can fill the whole world (institutions included).
Sorry Bill, for dragging the comments away from the post itself. But I think it is this approach to God’s power vs man’s that fits well with the Church’s response to persecution, struggle, and death. As such, I think your final paragraph said it quite well. I am happy not to be hunted because it gives me a taste of the life beyond, in full knowledge that I’m simply not there yet. As Tom Wright calls it, inaugurated eschatology, (or Caleb might call it Augustinian realism or romantic conservatism) ain’t it something?
Persecution is an aspect of church life in this age. But, I think, so is transformation, Christ honoring cultural and political renewal, and deformation leading back to the dark abyss.
Sorry, I hope that some of this makes some sense.