Paul’s Transformed Political Perspective

The political season here in the States has me thinking about Paul and politics.

Before he was arrested and transformed by the exalted Jesus on the Damascus Road, Paul (called Saul, at the time) was a Pharisee.  As such, he had a thoroughly political orientation and outlook.  He was passionate about the God of Israel bringing about the resurrection of the dead, which meant God’s restoration of Israel, his justification of the faithful, and his inauguration of the long-awaited Kingdom—God’s own religio-political and economic order on earth.

How did he imagine this was going to happen?

For the Pharisees, this involved a political effort.  They were seeking to present to God a nation that was passionately faithful to the Mosaic Law and its practices.  After all, if God sent Israel into exile because of unfaithfulness to the Law, then renewed faithfulness at the national level would move God to act to deliver the Jews from their enemies (the Romans) and bring about salvation—the renewed national religio-political order.

Paul’s political outlook led to political behaviors of coercion, power, and violence, toward others and toward God.

He violently persecuted the church because their confession that Jesus was the Christ was an affront to God.  Jesus was crucified by being hung on a cross, so he must have been cursed by God.  The church’s very existence, therefore, was preventing God from bringing about the resurrection of the dead.

And he was coercing God, manipulating him to save Israel through attempts to enforce national conformity to the Law.

Which brings us to the question: Politically speaking, what changed for Paul after his encounter with the exalted Lord Jesus?

The Conversion of St. Paul, Caravaggio

After his transformation, Paul was still a Pharisee (Acts 26:4-6).  He was still passionate about God effecting the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6).

That is, Paul’s political outlook didn’t change at all.  He was still consumed by the arrival of the Kingdom of God into the world—the in-breaking of God’s holistic religio-political and economic order of shalom.

What changed for Paul was the mode whereby this reality was brought into being.

It does not come by coercion, power, and violence.  It only comes through cruciformity.  Participation in the Kingdom of God and the realities of resurrection come by participating in the death of Jesus by the power of the Spirit.

This reality leads to cruciform postures of weakness and humility toward God.  We do not manipulate God into saving.  We put ourselves into God’s hands in weakness, confident of his overwhelming grace, overpowering forgiveness, and magnanimous love.

And we embody participation in the Kingdom of God through cruciform postures of non-coercion and non-violence toward others.

It seems to me that there are at least two ways that modern Christians wrongly conceive of Paul and politics. 

First, we might miss entirely that Paul had a political outlook, imagining that he only cared about “spiritual” matters.  Paul is only concerned with each person’s relationship to God, not with the corporate church as a political organism that ought to behave in any purposeful way toward the wider culture.

A second error is made by those who might recognize Paul’s political outlook, but fail to grasp his political mode of cruciformity.  They believe that God’s restored order and reign of righteousness is brought about through power, coercion, and violence.

We see this error when Christians adopt angry public rhetoric, applaud aggressive strategies of control and domination, and assume that the Christian cause is furthered through the agenda or this or that political party.

Both of these errors are capitulations of Paul’s political vision to the political agendas of our culture—the marginalizing of the political in favor of “the spiritual,” and the perversion of the political through surrender to the world’s way of doing things.

Paul envisions a body politic that is different, holy, a corporate body that embodies the character of Jesus in the world, that behaves creatively and redemptively in the midst of wider bodies politic.

Those who have been baptized into Christ cannot relate to the wider culture in ways that are coercive, manipulative, or violent.  Christians enduring an election cycle would do well to keep in mind what our Christian identity requires of us. 

We are people claimed by the cross and called to embody for the world the cross-shaped love of the exalted Lord Jesus.

That is a thoroughly political statement and ought to determine our political outlook and behaviors toward one another and others.

8 thoughts on “Paul’s Transformed Political Perspective

  1. Brian LePort

    Well said Tim. This is easier said than done at time. One question comes to mind though. While I can see how cruciformity works when advocating for our own general interest, what about when advocating for others like the oppressed and marginalized? How does our action for them change? I hope my question make sense.

    1. timgombis

      Great question, Brian.

      It seems to me that cruciformity doesn’t mean passivity. The church can (must!) play a prophetic role in calling out against injustices, exploitation, abuses of power, etc., especially on behalf of the powerless. In fact, in such cases, cruciformity will look like a fearlessness in the face of losing access to those in power because of our persistent advocacy for those who may not be able to speak for themselves.

      Further, intense political engagement may look like making personal and corporate sacrifices so that we can raise funds or gather resources to supply needs. Political action (taking the initiative to act redemptively as a polis set within a wider polis) doesn’t always have to look like advocating for governments to act. We can act to do good apart from government agencies. I’m thinking here of raising awareness about threats in neighborhoods, helping people meet concrete needs, helping ease the process of adoptions, volunteering for mentoring programs, etc.

    2. timgombis

      Just to say, Brian, that advocacy for others and action on behalf of others must be done in ways that are non-coercive and non-violent. That does not mean that we don’t take initiative, however.

  2. Brian LePort

    Thank you for the clarification! It is a tough task to address tense issues, especially on behalf of those we feel are being taken advantage of, without trying to use the same power games as the world. Often I find myself slipping into the same rhetoric when debating these matters.

    1. timgombis

      EXACTLY! That’s the insidiousness of sin–when you see exploitation and injustice, the immediate temptation is respond sinfully, which only exacerbates the problem. Or, in response to exploitation, we respond with desires for revenge, which only makes it worse, cycles of violence and retaliation, etc. (see “Middle East,” “U.S. History of Race Relations,” “U.S. Politics,” etc.).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s