In chapter three, Esau McCaulley discusses ‘the New Testament and the Political Witness of the Church’.

The white Christian consensus in America, writes McCaulley, has reduced its political theology to two things: prayer (as per 1 Timothy 2:1-4) and law and order (as per Romans 13:1-7).  Not, of course, that that there is anything wrong with these two things!  But to limit political theology in this was is to misread those very texts, and also to ignore the wider witness of the New Testament.

Martin Luther King, in his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ linked the gospel with the pursuit of justice:

‘I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century b.c. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.’

More than a century earlier, Frederick Douglass has asked:

‘What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.’ (Emphasis added)

To begin with Romans 13:1-7, this

‘should be read as a testimony to our inability to discern when God’s judgment will arrive. This does not mean that a Christian cannot protest injustice, it means that we cannot claim God’s justification for violent revolution. Submission and acquiescence are two different things.’

As for 1 Tim 2:1-4, Paul has already (1 Tim 1:8-11) singled out slavetraders as those who are ‘contrary to sound doctrine.’

‘For Paul, then, slave trading is a theological error to be shunned by Christians. I am not an expert on Roman slave law, but I am quite sure that there are no laws against slave trading. In fact, slave trading was seen as a good way to make money. Therefore, in the passage immediately preceding Paul’s call to pray for leaders he critiques an established practice of the empire as wicked and indicative of ungodly behavior. Prayer for leaders and criticism of their practices are not mutually exclusive ideas. Both have biblical warrant in the same letter.’

Where else should we look in the New Testament for our political theology?

Jesus and Herod, Lk 13:32

The whole of Jesus’ ministry could be seen as an act of political resistance:

‘Luke 1–2 clearly places the birth of Jesus in the context of the reigns of Augustus on one hand and Herod on the other. This placement raises the question of who is the true king of Israel and the world. The Gospels go on to argue that, despite all appearances, the true king with all authority is Jesus (Mt 28:18–20).’

But to focus on Jesus’ interraction with Herod: we need to ask why Herod would have seen Jesus as a threat.  Herod would not have been particularly concerned about Sabbath keeping or food laws.  Rather, he would have felt threatened by Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom – the kingly rule – of God.  After all,

‘a populace that believed that God was on the verge of breaking in was dangerous. Rome ramped up security every Passover because Passover always threatened to rekindle the memory of God’s mighty act to save.’

Note too the wording of Jesus’ message to Herod: “Go tell that fox”.  A very telling description, for,

‘Herod Antipas did not maintain his rule over Galilee because the people believed him to be the rightful ruler, but because he had the backing of the empire. His power was not real. His position was secured through posturing, compromise, and intrigue.’

Jesus’ reference to Herod as a ‘fox’

‘is a description of his political activity as it relates to the inevitable suffering of the people. This is a statement made in full view of Pharisees and sure to become a matter of public record.’

Christians, then, who criticise corrupt, self-serving rulers and who call out injustice and following in the footsteps of Jesus.

In the same passage, Jesus goes beyond criticism of Herod to speak of the way the entire prophetic tradition has been treated.  He says that Jerusalem is guilty of killing the prophets (v33).  This suggests to the attentive ear the message of Isaiah, for tradition says that he himself was killed in Jerusalem.  And Isaiah’s message is full of pleas on behalf of the oppressed, and against the oppressors:

• Ah, you who join house to house, / who add field to field, / until there is room for no one but you, / and you are left to live alone / in the midst of the land! (Is 5:8)

• Ah, sinful nation, / people laden with iniquity, / offspring who do evil, / children who deal corruptly, / who have forsaken the LORD, / who have despised the Holy One of Israel, / who are utterly estranged! (Is 1:4)

• Learn to do good; / seek justice, / rescue the oppressed, / defend the orphan, / plead for the widow. (Is 1:17)

To conclude:

‘Jesus’ statement about Herod was not some spur of the moment criticism of a political figure that he did not like. Jesus saw his ministry as a part of a tradition of Israel’s prophets who told the truth about unfaithfulness to God that manifested itself in the oppression of the disinherited. Jesus drew on the prophets as he spoke truth to power. Therefore, those Black Christians who see in those same prophets the warrant for their own public ministry have Jesus as their support.’

Paul: the gospel ‘sets us free from the present evil age’ (Gal 1:3-5)

Of course, Paul sets out other effects of Christ’s atonement: justification (Rom 4:25), inheritance (Rom 8:32), and so on.  But here the emphasis is different.  The ‘present evil age’ is in thrall to the ‘powers’ that hold sway over earthly rulers.  We may not sharply delineate between ‘spiritual’ and ‘political’ evil, and God’s work of redemption in both areas.  The ‘present evil’ age includes the evil of slavery and economic exploitation.

Paul’s language here echoes that of Isaiah, who heralds the ‘new heavens and the new earth’ in terms of a change in the social and political fortunes of exiled Israel (Isa 65:13,17).

We may not say that Paul only had in mind ‘spiritual’ enslavement.  The transformed lives of believers had implications for the way women and slaves (among others) were treated (cf. Gal 3:28).

In conclusion:

‘When Black Christians look upon the actions of political leaders and governments and call them evil, we are making a theological claim in the same way that Paul was. Protest is not unbiblical; it is a manifestation of our analysis of the human condition in light of God’s own word and vision for the future. His vision may await an appointed time, but it is coming (Hab 2:1–4).’

John and his visions

The Apocalypse identifies Rome with that other oppressive empire, ‘Babylon’ (Rev 18:2).  Indeed, John condemns his ‘Babylon’ in terms similar to those used in Isa 14:46.

Rome’s oppressive practices, along with its persecution of God’s people (Rev 18:24), will bring about its downfall.

‘The question that ought to keep Christians up at night is not the political activism of Black Christians. The question should be how 1 Timothy 2:1–4 came to dominate the conversation about the Christian’s responsibility to the state. How did we manage to ignore the clearly political implications of Paul’s casual remarks about the evil age in Galatians and his wider reflections on the links between evil powers and politicians? How did John’s condemnation of Rome in Revelation fall from view? Why did Jesus’ public rebuke of Herod get lost to history? It may have been because it was in the best interest of those in power to silence Black voices.’

Returning to Jesus

The Lord pronounces blessings on those who grieve, and on those who hunger and thirst for justice (Mt 5:4,6).  Now,

‘to mourn involves being saddened by the state of the world. To mourn is care. It is an act of rebellion against one’s own sins and the sins of the world…mourning allowed Rev. Dr. King to look on the suffering of the people in Birmingham and refuse to turn away. Mourning calls on all of us to recognize our complicity in the sufferings of others. We do not simply mourn the sins of the world. We mourn our own greed, lusts, and desires that allow us to exploit others. Sin is more than exploitation, but it is certainly not less. A theology of mourning never allows us the privilege of apathy. We can never put the interests of our families or our country over the suffering of the world.’

To hunger and thirst for justice,

‘is nothing less than the continued longing for God to come and set things right. It is a vision of the just society established by God that does not waver in the face of evidence to the contrary…To hunger for justice is to hope that the things that cause us to mourn will not get the last word.’

What does all this have to do with the public witness of the church?

‘Jesus asks us to see the brokenness in society and to articulate an alternative vision for how we might live. This does not mean that we believe that we can establish the kingdom on earth before his second coming. It does mean that we see society for what it is: less than the kingdom. We let the world know that we see the cracks in the facade.’

According to Isa 9:6f,

‘The messianic son of David, as the agent of God’s will, would be known for establishing justice on the earth. To hunger for justice in a messianic context is to long for God to establish his just rule over the earth through his chosen king. Righteousness or justice then, is inescapably political. Hungering for justice is a hungering for the kingdom.’

Consider another beatitude: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ (Mt 5:9).  Once again, the voice of the prophet (Isa 11:6-9) is echoed.

But peacemaking cannot be separated from truth telling:

‘The church’s witness does not involve simply denouncing the excesses of both sides and making moral equivalencies. It involves calling injustice by its name. If the church is going to be on the side of peace in the United States, then there has to be an honest accounting of what this country has done and continues to do to Black and Brown people. Moderation or the middle ground is not always the loci of righteousness. Housing discrimination has to be named. Unequal sentences and unfair policing has to be named. Sexism and the abuse and commodification of the Black female body has to end. Otherwise any peace is false and nonbiblical. Beyond naming there has to be some vision for the righting of wrongs and the restoration of relationships. The call to be peacemakers is the call for the church to enter the messy world of politics and point toward a better way of being human.’

Peacemaking can be personal, and it can be corporate:

‘When it is corporate, we are testifying to the universal reign of Jesus. When it is interpersonal, we are bearing witness to the work that God has done in our hearts. These things need not be put into competition.’

Note that Jesus does not, in enunciating the beatitude, assume that those at enmity are believers.  But peacemkaing can be evangelistic, because,

‘through our efforts to bring peace we show the world the kind of king and kingdom we represent. The outcome of our peacemaking is to introduce people to the kingdom. Therefore the work of justice, when understood as direct testimony to God’s kingdom, is evangelistic from start to finish. It is part (not the whole) of God’s work of reconciling all things to himself.’