When the Church engages in questions of governance, it does so through two distinct roles: prophetically and politically. Distinguishing between these is essential to understand the role of the Church in society. Conversely, failing to distinguish between the two can lead to dogmatic, self-righteous political engagement or corrupted, capitulating, spiritual engagement—both of which undermine the Church’s pursuit of the Great Commission.
In the prophetic role, the Church communicates God’s truth to society with boldness and clarity. The Old Testament prophets condemned and encouraged ancient Isreal’s society and leaders. Similarly, in the New Testament, Peter, John, and Stephen all challenged Israel’s leaders.1
The prophetic role is inherently theological. The prophets did not communicate their own “truths” but God’s truth. Those who falsely claimed to speak for God were to be put to death. Paul likewise did not preach a Gospel received from men, but one received from God.
The prophetic role is inherently moral. When God speaks, it is not opinion, preference, or suggestion. It is a judgement, command, or truth. Through the prophets and apostles, God provided a moral framework to navigate by, one that defined and condemned sins, beckoned repentance, and foretold salvation.
The prophetic role is inherently uncompromising. The Old Testament prophets persisted in communicating God’s truth no matter the cost or response. The Apostles similarly persisted in communicating God’s truth in the face of resistance and persecution.
The prophetic role is inherently eternal in perspective. The prophets and apostles communicated truth that was not just relevant in the moment but for all time. They could speak clearly and boldly no matter the present circumstances because they knew God would ultimately triumph. Even in suffering, Paul declared, “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.”
The prophetic role is primarily (but not exclusively) directed towards God’s own people. In the Old Testament, the prophets generally spoke to the Israelites. Likewise, Jesus repeatedly condemned the Pharisees but rarely rebuked the Romans. Paul similarly declared, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” The godly hunger and thirst for God’s truth; the ungodly, like Pilate, dismissively ask, “What is truth?”
The prophetic role contrasts sharply with the political. In its political capacity, the Church, through individual Christians, attempts to govern society with justice and diligence. Biblically, we see many examples of this including Joseph, Moses, David, and Daniel. Any Christian with a measure of governing authority plays a political role, including Christians with the authority to vote and serve on juries.
But the political role is inherently prudential, not theological. The options facing Christian authorities are limited by societal attitudes and governing structures. For example, the Bible condemns drunkenness, but a Christian authority today has limited options for legally restraining it, given societal attitudes. Failure to recognize the prudential nature of politics often leads political theology astray. The theological truth has no political relevance beyond its ability to positively shape society. In another example, Joseph governed Egyptians who worshiped other gods but was in no position to ban the practice of paganism. Daniel was in a similar position in Babylon.
The political role is not inherently moral. When Christian authorities make political choices, they are generally expressing preferences and opinions given the available options, not moral truths. Joseph’s toleration of Egyptian idolatry was not a denial of monotheism. Policy generally involves trade-offs that benefit some groups at the expense of others. Likewise, Christian authorities exercise personal judgement on which political battles to fight and when.
This is not to deny that there are moral boundaries when exercising authority—God sharply condemns authorities who deny justice, for example.2 Christian authorities should wield power morally which, in some circumstances, may entail relinquishing it or refusing to carry out orders. But the political space between such boundaries is wide, and the boundaries themselves are often misunderstood for several reasons.
For one, Christians often fail to distinguish between the toleration and practice of sin. Daniel, like Joseph, had little choice but to tolerate idol worship among those he governed even while he would never personally practice it. Likewise, an authority may favor civil liberties that enable society to sin, but this is not the same thing as personally practicing or encouraging such sins. Even in the case of murder, a less extreme response does not entail endorsement. The particulars of a judicial system, for example, will directly impact the number of crimes that occur, including murder. A harsher system is more likely to convict both the guilty and the innocent, lowering crime rates in the process; a lenient system is more likely to acquit both, leading to a higher crime rate. To favor more robust due process (at the expense of higher crime) is not the moral equivalent of favoring crime itself.
Secondly, Christians often misunderstand the moral boundaries of authority because they under-recognize the implications of policy in general. The aforementioned dilemma of balancing justice and murder rates is similar to dilemmas found with other policies. A generous welfare system will reduce poverty but discourage labor force participation. Christians sometimes claim a particular policy position is “Biblical” because they perceive the serious implications of it (think William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech). They are not incorrect, so much as failing to recognize the tradeoffs. The gold standard put very real economic pressure on farmers, but inflation (by way of silver coinage) also put very real economic pressure on consumers. Balancing these tradeoffs is a political rather than theological task.
The political role is inherently compromising. We live in a sinful world, and it will remain sinful until Christ returns. This means that Christian authorities must forge compromises between God’s truth and the sinful realities of life. Moses provides an example. Divorce is a sin (in most cases) and yet Moses, under God’s guidance, allowed the Israelites to divorce because the hearts of the people were hard. In similar fashion, Christian authorities will have no choice but to tolerate a measure of sin in the societies they govern. Christian voters must likewise make compromises no matter who they support.
The political role is inherently temporal in perspective; politicians must make choices based on present, yet ever-changing, circumstances. It is also inherently directed towards all of society, not just Christians. Christian authorities wield power over an ever-changing (and precisely unknown) balance of Christians and non-Christians. Christian authorities, therefore, have no choice but to take into account the practices and attitudes of the non-Christians they govern.
What does this look like in practice? In the prophetic role, the Church clearly condemns lying, gossip, prostitution, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, exploitation, racism, and other sins. And yet, in the political role, the Church recognizes the policy response to these problems are constrained by societal attitudes and governing structures. Moreover, differing opinions on the shape of the inevitable political compromise is generally that—a difference in opinion.
Finally, Christians must humbly and patiently remember the Church is one body with many (fallen and sinful) parts and cooperatively work together despite our differences and avoid division. Christians playing the prophetic role will naturally (and beneficially) focus on differing sins. Some will focus on abortion, others on racism, and yet others on economic exploitation. It is self-righteous for Christians to condemn each other for not having equal passion for the other’s issue.
We should also be slow to condemn differing theological positions as heresy. There will inevitably be a measure of uncertainty and error in modern prophetic pronouncements. Theological debate can be constructive, but ultimately, we must trust that God will correct the errant party (or parties).
Similarly, Christians playing the prophetic role should not condemn Christian authorities (including voters) for making political compromises they disagree with. All too often Christians playing the prophetic role narrowly focus on a single issue and sharply condemn any measure of political compromise.
Conversely, Christian authorities should not condemn those playing the prophetic role because their statements are not politically expedient. In its sinfulness, the world will inevitably reject God’s truth to some degree which will make it politically unpopular. Christian authorities should not deny the sinfulness of their political allies (or themselves) for the sake of political expediency.
Likewise, Christians playing the political role will inevitably (and beneficially) hold differing opinions given our differences in background and experiences. Christian authorities should not condemn each other over such differences but cooperatively work together to understand each other’s perspective and forge the compromises necessary to wield authority.
Both the prophetic and political roles are crucial ways the Church evangelizes and ministers to society. Clearly differentiating between these roles can help the Church more effectively play both which, in turn, will make it more effective.