Nope, most definitely not Reconstructionism!

Tom: Then in what sense IS the Church ‘political’ (or what do we mean by ‘policitcal’) if it doesn’t endorse or condemn positions that impact the wider polis? If you just mean being a prophetic and moral voice within the world (e.g., for the poor), then sure. But I don’t see how this equates to ‘being political’.

Can you provide some examples of what it would look like for the Church AS the Church to seek our culture’s blessing in being political? You mention our being political requiring the blessing (permission?) of the non-Christian culture, no? How would the earliest believers have fulfilled their calling to worship God politically in a culture advocating their destruction (say, during Diocletian’s reign)?

Here’s what I’m hearing: (a) Christian worship integrates political, economic, and commercial practices (among others), and (b) Christians are to seek the blessing/permission of the surrounding culture in imagining ways of being political that go beyond endorsing the standing agendas of the day. It looks to me like the Church’s identity is thus bequeathed it (in part) by the culture at large.

To say “Paul envisioned the church as a political entity that seeks the blessing of the culture in which it is embedded” needs a LOT of qualification, because much in Paul places the Christian hope for redeemed society on the other side of the Parousia and judgment. So while it’s easy to say that “because it is holy, the church must imagine ways of being political that go beyond merely endorsing the agenda of this or that political party,” I need to see you take the next step and imagine for us some ways of being political as the Body of Christ which go beyond merely endorsing the agenda of this or that party.

Don’t get me wrong. I think you’re completely right to think that redeemed human society fulfills all the various dimensions of human being—social, economic, commercial and political. Everything we aim to accomplish (or to manage) through political means does indeed find its fulfillment in redeemed society lived in Christ. And I agree that the Church is to be a place where believers live that out. But to disagree with one responder, I don’t view America as a New Israel, a city set on a hill, and don’t attribute to American what is the exclusive calling of the Church as a prophetic presence in the world.

If this means believers are to seek to achieve a redeemed society through the constraint of political power this side of the eschaton, then I think that’s overreaching. God redeems ‘the political’ categorically, yes. But this side of the eschaton, I think fully redeemed human ‘society’ can only be approximated WITHIN the community of the redeemed.

How they intended it (as I understand it) was not that the state was to be secular (no mention of God), but that it was not to officially endorse one particular version of God (but I believe they still presupposed most people would be believers, even if a variety of different denominations, Protestant and catholic, perhaps even Jewish).

I say this because American state fathers saw the United States as a city on a hill, New Jerusalem, restored Israel – all very faith-saturated viewpoints. This is evidence in sermons of the time, also referenced in the personal correspondence of your early presidents.

The political consequence of this means that we must not compromise in our desire to be governed by men of faith ( it is the moral obligation of our political duty). It also means that our politics must be moral first, and partisan second. This last point seems the most diffucult to achieve in reality, especially in a bipolar two party partisan democracy.

Agreed, I still don’t understand how that translates into a role for us in a national, secular setting beyond serving Christ, praying for our leaders, avoiding maligning the leaders and obeying the laws. God’s kingdom is not of this world. Our citizenship is not in the USA, it’s in the new Jerusalem.

However, that ancient Israel was a theocracy doesn’t stop us from moving towards better integration, having a Holy theocratic mindset in our politics – however we make national decisions.

Look at the language Jesus himself used …:
- He called HIS CALLED ‘Kingdom of God’ and instructed people to ‘seek’ it [Matt 6:33]
- He stated ‘The Kingdom of God is at hand ..’ [Matt 4:12][Mark 1:15]
- He said ‘The Kingdom of God’ has come upon you’ [Matt 12:28]
- He proclaimed the Good News of the ‘Kingdom of God’, not the potentially good news [Luke 4:43]

Clearly Jesus treated God’s portion his people [Deut 32:9], the ‘Kingdom of God’ as a ‘literal thing’ (even if it was differentiated from all other kingdoms by the presence of the sanctuary of God, a spiritual differentiator [John 18:36] (His Kingdom may have been IN the world, but it was not OF the world)

If Jesus (Yeshua) treated his Kingdom as a Kingdom, at the forefront of our thinking should be the understanding being Christian’s first, makes us all monarchists supremely loyal to our King (and in His party). Our politics is one of holiness whoever is running for office and what ever party they represent.

As for the workings of democracies, as long as the King’s heart is as water in the hand of the Lord [Pro 21:1], all of that other stuff is of lesser importance.

Pay my tax, pray for my leaders, avoid maligning them, obey the law unless it demonstrably violates God’s law. That’s it.

Ancient Israel was a theocracy, AD era there is no such thing so we must be very careful here.

The ideals of ancient Israel that Yahweh had for them, they are for us as individuals, but, I am not sure how I would apply them to my life in a public fashion as opposed to private beyond what I wrote above.

It all comes down to how we take the meaning of the Greek word ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia G1577) (which everyone assumes means church). One sure fire test to gauge meaning is to compare words in the NT where the OT is being quoted.

[Hebrews 2:12] quotes [Psalm 22:22]. Notice that ekklēsia G1577 is taken to mean ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’.

Perhaps Paul didn’t use the word ekklēsia to mean ‘church’ at all, but used it to mean ‘assembly or congregation’. Perhaps this idea of ‘church’ comes from early Church fathers, and has carried on ass an unquestioned presupposition …

.. in which case it stands to reason that Paul envisioned the assembly he was addressing as the political entity of a redeemed Israel, a veritable Kingdom of God, a nation of priests [Exo 19:6][Isa 61:6], a Holy nation [Exo 19:6] Because it is a holy people, the congregation must imagine ways of being political that go beyond merely endorsing the agenda of this or that political party.

If the ‘church’ is Israel and Israel is the ‘church’ it makes understanding Paul far easier.

I agree with your post.