Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Baptists, John the Baptist, and the two kingdoms

Both the Chic-fil-a kerfuffle and the campaign season generally raise the question of Christian political activism. Among some Baptists, as well as Presbyterians of the 2k variety, Christian political activism is often frowned upon. In that vein, here’s a striking comparison:


3For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, 4 because John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Mt 14:3-4).

Here John the Baptist speaks out against the sexual immorality of a public figure. A powerful politician.

11 comments:

  1. And Lot's daughter's had sex with him while he was inebriated.

    What indication is there that John's behavior is to be taken as normative for Christians?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i) In Lot's case it's more a question of what was done to him (inducing a state of diminished responsibility) than what he did.

      ii) By contrast, John's public denunciation of Herod was a reflection of his prophetic ministry.

      Delete
  2. How is John the Baptist comparable to Lot?

    Moreover, the issue isn't what's normative, but what's permissible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John the Baptist isn't comparable to Lot. The thrust of my comparison doesn't lie in the two men but rather the treatment of the respective biblical texts. The purpose of my statement and question was to get at the hermeneutic being employed.

      Yes, John denounced Herod and was imprisoned, then subsequently executed for his denunciation. But so what? How does that in any way relate to Christians at any time, except to illustrate what might happen if you denounce powerful leaders in an authoritarian state?

      I agree with a great deal of what I find published by you and other TriBloggers, but I am curious about how you are handling this text such that you are comfortable drawing some lesson about how Christians should think about political activism.

      Perhaps you can more clearly lay out your case for your use of the text in this instance.

      Also please more clearly delineate the cash value of difference between "Normative for Christians" and "permissible for Christians".

      Delete
    2. There are Baptists/2k proponents who think it's wrong for a pastor to preach on "political" issues. Some of them also think it's wrong for a Christian layman to resort to political activism. Some of them think we should only evangelize the lost, not legislate morality. They think political activism confuses the civil kingdom with Christ's kingdom.

      John the Baptist is a divinely-authorized religious figure. He's a herald of the kingdom. A signpost of the new covenant.

      He speaks out against the sin of a political figure. This isn't even a matter of public policy. This is what Herod is doing in private. Yet that falls under John's public censure.

      Given that example, how is it wrong for a pastor or layman to do what some Baptists and/or 2k proponents say is verboten? John isn't compartmentalizing the two kingdoms.

      Delete
    3. I know a little about 2-Kingdom theory, but I'm no expert. I have heard some people say that Christians should be disengaged with the political process... However, these are usually people who want to read the NT in an anachronistic way, pretending that USA is materially comparable to the 1C Roman empire.

      I'm not in agreement with that thinking though, believing as I do that we are, among other things, agents of God's grace. Our striving to slow moral decay of public society is part of God's common grace. I don't think that it should be our primary focus since we are not called, as some people assert, to "redeem" the things of this present age.

      Of course I'll stipulate that John the Baptist was the greatest of all men born of women up to that time. However, like all of the great men before him, not all of his actions or inactions are to be modeled by Christians. Clearly John was confused about the type of kingdom that Jesus was bringing, therefore sending his followers to inquire of Jesus whether He was the messiah or not. Given this, it seems best to let the text tell us whether or not John's denunciation was commendable... Except that it doesn't. Better not to use it in that way, then.

      I don't see textual justification for drawing the conclusion John's public denunciation of Herod was either normative nor merely permissible. Of course, you could dig back into the OT and talk about how God hates iniquity and that debauchery done by leaders, especially when done publicly in brazen arrogance is strongly condemned, but that doesn't actually speak to the actions of John, per se.

      Clearly I am not saying that speaking out against public sins is something Christians should avoid. What I am saying is that this text doesn't carry the load for you. It seems a much better argument to pull from the vast tracts of texts in the OT about how God detests the proud and arrogant public sinner.

      One could preach a strong sermon on that theme, taking the opportunity speak out against specific public evils and be on much firmer ground. It seems to me that John's example is best used as a warning sign to let people know what such actions can get you... in 1C Roman-controlled Palestine.

      I'm still interested in a little more explanation of your normative vs. permissible distinction as it relates here.

      Delete
    4. Mr. Fosi

      “I don't think that it should be our primary focus since we are not called, as some people assert, to "redeem" the things of this present age.”

      That’s a straw man which opponents of Christian political activism like to burn in effigy. They act as if this is a replay of Rauschenbusch.

      But evangelical conservatives who support cultural engagement don’t labor under the illusion that they are ushering in the kingdom of heaven, or hastening the return of Christ. It’s simply a defensive maneuver, A preservative against moral anarchy.

      In addition, different Christians have different vocations. We don’t have a primary calling.

      “Of course I'll stipulate that John the Baptist was the greatest of all men born of women up to that time. However, like all of the great men before him, not all of his actions or inactions are to be modeled by Christians.”

      I’m not referring to his actions, but his public teaching. Denouncing the corrupt political and religious establishment was part of his prophetic ministry.

      “Clearly John was confused about the type of kingdom that Jesus was bringing, therefore sending his followers to inquire of Jesus whether He was the messiah or not. Given this, it seems best to let the text tell us whether or not John's denunciation was commendable... Except that it doesn't.”

      It’s clear from John 1 that John the Baptist was not confused. You’re alluding to his crisis of faith when he was imprisoned. That’s an emotional reaction to isolation, fear of death. He simply needed encouragement. Had to be reminded of what he already knew. That’s not uncommon for believers undergoing an emotional crisis.

      The rest of your comment piggybacks on your confused interpretation.

      “I'm still interested in a little more explanation of your normative vs. permissible distinction as it relates here.”

      I don’t know what you find mysterious about that. If there are Christians who think political engagement is wrong, one doesn’t have to show that it’s normative to refute them. Rather, it’s sufficient to show that it’s permissible. That it’s not wrong. That’s different from saying it’s mandatory.

      Delete
  3. When I engage the R2Kers or the E2Kers, I have used the example of John the Baptist just as you did. I have never seen an adequate response from R2Kers about John the Baptist.

    In addition, I remind them about what Jesus said about John the Baptist. I.e., how highly regarded John the Baptist was by Jesus.

    Was John the Baptist's Gospel message compromised because he confronted King Herod?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Was John the Baptist's Gospel message compromised because he confronted King Herod?

    Duh, of course it was. He got thrown in prison.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aaaack! Rhology is an R2Ker! Opposing the legality of abortion is a political act, a political act which compromises the Gospel!

    Hence, Christians should not oppose the legality of abortion, for such activism deflects from the Gospel!

    ReplyDelete
  6. AAHHHHHH!!! He wants me to be...con...con...con...CONSISTENT!!!!

    [head explodes]

    ReplyDelete