The Essence of “Theopolitics”
God is sovereign
Sermon Preached by
The Rev. Dr. Andrew Stirling
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Text: Amos 3:3-15
When the planes flew into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, not only did grit and mortar and molten metal come tumbling down along with innocent victims, I think a veil came down as well. The veil that came down is: from that moment the world, the western world and North America in particular, started to take seriously the power and influence of “theopolitics.” By theopolitics, I mean the overt and deliberate desire to place God in charge of national policies and ideas of nations.
I say a veil came down not to suggest that theopolitics hasn't existed for thousands of years. It has! But our awareness of its immediate impact on our lives became all the more notable. I think it is fair to say that the world, particularly the western world and the media, for the latter part and the mid-twentieth century was preoccupied with the conflict between two great poles - Communism and Capitalism. In that bipolar world, most of the concerns, most of the issues related to geopolitics and the movement of nations were around the conflict or struggle between these two ideologies.
By the time the latter part of the twentieth century had come around, that bipolarity ceased to be the most important thing. Once that bipolarity started to give, ethnic struggles that had been repressed under the panorama, under the view of the struggle of those particular ideologies, started to rise. Nations and cultures and groups decided to seize upon beliefs that were long-held: that their own ethnicity or nation or race had a particular destiny, and now that the struggle between the bipolar worlds was starting to diminish, these became all the more important.
But the actual finger in the eye of the world regarding the influence of theopolitics was really manifested on September 11th. The reason I say this is because I think the motivation for many of the people who were behind that incident was the belief that what they were doing was God-ordained, and if it was God-ordained, then it is theopolitics.
As one writer rightly put it, geopolitics today is now influenced more by theopolitics than any other single ideology or value. Whether that is totally true or not, is still subject to debate. It is a bit of an overstatement, but there is a profound element of truth in it. You can see that manifested over the last few years. Is not the struggle that is going on within the nation of Iran at the moment the struggle about theopolitics? Is it not whether a theocracy is established, run by clergy and a government that is subservient to a particular religious view in power, or is it the people with the conflicting idea, not necessarily a secular one, but a conflicting idea, not the source or part of the struggle that is going on in Iran? I think it is.
Even the very existence of the State of Israel is a sign of the power of theopolitics. The conflict that often exists in Israel between the religious and the secular about the nature of the state and where it can go is influenced by theopolitics. It does not mean that those who are on the right wing in Israel are the only ones who necessarily believe in God - on the contrary! But, it does mean that a particular view of what the state should be and how it should exist is a struggle from the basis of theopolitics. This past weekend, for example, there was a conflict within Israel about whether particular things should be open on the Sabbath - again theopolitics! Who should determine if something should be open on the Sabbath and what does God want from it?
Under the presidency of George W. Bush, we again saw the power of theopolitics. Here was a man who believed that he could find divine guidance for divisions that existed in the world and what role the United States should play within it. He saw a cosmic struggle between good and evil, and sought to find a way the United States could play a role within that cosmic struggle. George Bush was clearly a man who was influenced by theopolitics. In many ways, he was drawing on a deep-seated American value, called Manifest Destiny that drove him to make many of the decisions that he made.
I am not suggesting that Barack Obama is any less religious or committed to Christ, but there is not quite the same intensity to it that there was in George W. Bush. And, lest we feel here in Canada that we somehow just gloss over such issues, we have just sung in our National Anthem, have we not, “God keep our land glorious and free.” Do you not find within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a reference to God and God's sovereignty over the nation? Have we not just said in one of our opening prayers that God would have dominion from sea-to-sea? So, even here we are touched by the history and tradition of theopolitics. You can't get away from it!
As people of faith, we are often faced with a quandary. When we see theocracies in Iran and when we hear religious statements made about the destiny of nations, we sometimes feel a little uncomfortable and unsure how we in the modern world relate to theopolitics, and what should our values be as we seek to be good citizens in the world. After all, as Christians, we believe in some things that influence our values and the way that we look at theopolitics. We believe, do we not, in the sovereignty of God over all nations and all peoples and all things? That is a central tenet of everything we hold dear.
I mentioned last week that Calvin's third wish was for prayers to be given in the seat of power in Geneva and the word of God to be read. Part of our Reformed heritage and tradition is the desire to see the state respond to and be under the power of God: theopolitics. We also believe, along with the Apostle Paul in Romans, Chapter 13:1, that there is not a power that exists save that which is “established by God.”
We believe in the sovereignty of God over all things and all nations, but we also have another side, and that is the side of resistance: we recognize that there are times and places for a prophetic word to be spoken, not in favour of the state, but against the state. I love, for example, the wonderful story in the Book of Daniel of three of my favourite characters - Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - who went to Nebuchadnezzar and absolutely refused to bow down to the great idol on the plain of Dura. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego said “No!” because they believed in God.
Even religious hierarchy and religious powers that seek to claim the authority of God are also resisted. In the Book of Acts, Chapter 4, we find both John and Peter resisting the religious councils that were trying to silence them, and they would not be silenced because they believed in the power of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ. They would not be quiet even though they were told to be so.
Therefore, we believe in the sovereignty of God, but we also believe in resistance to authorities when they don't do the godly thing. So, how do we live? What are we, as citizens, to make of this movement of theocracy throughout the world and the use of theopolitics? Who is right? Who is wrong? Who should we listen to?
I want to draw on one of the greatest prophets in the whole of the Old Testament for our example, and that is the prophet Amos. Oh, I love Amos! I am not sure if I had met Amos at a pub or a coffee shop that we would have got along very well. I am sure he would have told me off for something that I was doing wrong since he was that type of a person: probably a bit prickly, definitely ornery, but usually right.
Amos was a herdsman from Tekoa, ten miles south of Jerusalem, a man who was from the countryside, but who came into the city. He came into the city of Jerusalem at a time of great wealth and prosperity, and a time of great success for the nation. But, he also saw that the nation he loved was divided between the north and the south. The south had a king called Uzziah, after which Isaiah himself had prophesied, and in the north the King under which he lived was a man called Jeroboam. The northern kingdom was known as Israel.
Amos came into the city and he started to preach the word of God. It is amazing that the High Priest at the time, Amaziah, tried to silence him, tried to make him keep quiet, could not stand his prophesy and wanted it suppressed. Amos wouldn't be silent because he saw within the land and the nations around a profound turning away from God: not turning away from speaking of God, not turning away even at times from the worship of God necessarily, but turning away from doing God's will.
Amos saw the anomalies that existed, and he believed that he had the word to speak to the nation, not from a position of power and authority, not from on high, but from below, from that of a simple herdsman, a simple man from Tekoa who had been touched by the Spirit of God.
What did Amos say and why does what he said mean something to us? He believed, as all the great prophets do, in the sovereignty of God over all things. He believed that God had made a covenant with Israel. He said, “You alone were chosen.” He believed that the People of Israel needed to remember that God had saved them from the hand of the Egyptians, that God had liberated them and set them free, and that he was the source of their freedom, and that without God they would have had nothing.
Amos was concerned that the People of Israel, even though they were chosen, did not understand that with God's divine choice and selection came divine responsibility. There is this incredible line, and it is a terrifying line from Amos: “You alone have I chosen, therefore I will punish you.” In other words, Israel was called to a higher standard. It was called to respond to the covenant of grace and the choice of God.
It wasn't just Israel and Amos that was to be corrected; it was also the other nations. Let's make it abundantly clear: Amos understood God's covenant with Israel as the covenant that was not just for itself, but was for others. Only Isaiah really developed that into a full understanding of the prophetic sovereignty of God. But even in Amos, the countries around also would be judged. Amos knew that this nation that God loved, called and chose had better live up to God's will and God's purpose.
Unfortunately, that was not what he was seeing. What he was seeing was the turning away from God. What he saw was the arrogance of power. What he saw was the inequity between the rich and the poor. What he saw was the subjugation of rural people in urban settings. What he observed was social injustice. Amos said, “No. You alone have I called, but therefore I will punish you.” It is a strong word about covenant, but also a strong word about responsibility.
I think it is fascinating that in the New Testament the one who really picked up on the prophetic ministry of Amos was the Apostle Paul. In a very interesting article that I was given this past week, in The Atlantic Magazine, there was an article by Robert Wright in April about how Paul saw one world under God. It was not just the nation of Israel, it was not just the chosen people with whom God has covenant that were to be accountable to God; it was the whole of humanity. Paul speaks in these general terms about both Greek and Jew, about slave and free, and male and female. He contends that with the coming of Jesus, God's covenant is with the whole world, and the whole world is under God's care and God's sovereignty.
God also sees the distortion that occurs when governments take that godly power upon themselves as opposed to seeing themselves being under the power of God. Now this is critical: When Amos came into the urban setting, he saw the corruption that existed, but he also knew that the corruption stemmed from the top.
It stemmed from the monarchy and it stemmed from the religious leaders who went along for the ride. Their lack of righteousness and morality and social justice was practiced in order that they could become very important and influential. Isn't it easy to try to sometimes find religious values and the values of the state interwoven, where they play off each other for the gain of somebody?
There is a wonderful story told, and this is of a humorous kind, about a minister who found out that the congregation needed some money to put a new roof on the building. So, he decided he was going to make a big announcement in church and that on that Sunday he was going to ask everyone for money. The only problem was that the organist on that day wasn't well and had to go home, so the assistant organist had to play, and had hardly played before in church. The minister went to the assistant organist and said, “After I have made the big appeal, I want you to play a great piece of music, something really uplifting and inspiring.”
The assistant organist said, “Fine. I'll gladly do this!”
The minister got up, made the announcement of the roof, and said, “By the way, I would like a hundred dollars from all of you here. So, all of you who are prepared to give a hundred dollars, would you please stand.” Immediately, the organist began with a rendition of O Canada. The minister looked at the organist and said, “I think you have the job permanently from now on!”
Isn't it easy to use nationalist sentiments for religious gain, or religious sentiment for national gain? It so easily becomes distorted and more often that not it is not funny. Sometimes it is deadly serious! When the state claims to take the sovereign power away and exercise it for itself, deadly things happen.
I have been reading an account of the life of Pastor Niemöller, who was the great pastor during the time of Hitler in Nazi Germany. He was a man who had served in World War I as a U-boat captain, had grown up in a religious family, but saw that what Hitler and the fascists were doing was disgusting, and he really hated the way in which Hitler had encroached upon the church. He wanted to stop this encroachment and to say, “You can't do this!” Unfortunately, Niemöller was silenced. Writing about this, Victor Shepherd, in a biography, says:
Harassment of pastors continued. Niemöller stated, 'It is dreadful and infuriating to see how a few unprincipled men, who call themselves Church Government, are destroying the church and persecuting the fellowship of Jesus.'
In 1937, in July, the secret police arrested Niemöller. He had already been imprisoned five times, and on each of those occasions, he had been released within a day or two. He expected the same quick release this time, but he was wrong. The next eight years found him behind bars: the personal prisoner of Hitler himself. On his admission to the Berlin prison, he was approached by the Prison Chaplain, another clergyman, a man Niemöller recognized from his naval days, and now known as a Nazi stooge. “Pastor Niemöller,” the Chaplain said, “Why are you in prison?” Niemöller stared back at him and asked, “Why are you not?”
It is so easy to be co-opted. It is so easy to become part of what the state wants or what the government wants. Amos understood that there was a time in which you have to say to the state: “No, only God is sovereign.” There is a danger when those who are the leaders of the state go hand-in-hand with what they believe to be the will of God, because sometimes, with power, it can be distorted. For Amos, it is not by divine fiat that a government rules, but a government rules when it does the divine will, when it lives according to the righteousness and the morality and the justice of the living God. It is not a matter of status; it is a matter of obedience.
There is a third element to what Amos said, and it is the most important element of all. It is that he found the freedom to be a person of faith in the midst of a state that was corrupt. It is that freedom that Amos spoke about time-and-time again. “How can I not speak? How can I be silent?” was what Amos was saying. I think, when I look at the church, I would ask, “What should people of faith do and be in the world that we are in?” I would reply to myself, “It is to remain free and to preserve the freedom both from the state and for the state.”
There is a need to be free from the state in order that people of faith can actually be defiant and say “No!” - just like the resistance of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego or Amos or John or Peter, who say, “This is not what God wants!” But, if you are too closely tied to the power of the state, you don't have the freedom to be able to do that.
The Christian must also be a person who is free for the state. This does not mean that people of faith should live in opposition to the state. On the contrary, we are called to be good citizens. What Paul wanted us to do in Romans 13, was to pray for our leaders, which is something we do here at Timothy Eaton. It is something that all of us should do and must do. But, to do that freely, you need to preserve your freedom for the state.
The moment that the Church, or any religious body, assumes political power or state power, there is the danger that the thing that will be hurt the most is the prophetic call of God. It is always that which suffers first. Therefore, to be good citizens is to be free. Then, you say, “But how then do we influence the state? How does God's sovereignty manifest itself?”
God manifests himself through people who practice their faith. If there is anything that we can do in this time of theopolitics and uncertainty and conflict in the world, it is to encourage others to come to faith in Christ. It is to see themselves under the sovereignty of God first, and by so doing, to see the whole world and their nation and everything else under that sovereignty. It is precisely that which empowered Amos to say, “Thus sayeth the Lord.” I believe it is that very conviction and belief that changes the world.
I leave you with a word by John Wycliffe, after whom Wycliffe College is named, the great fourteenth century translator of the Bible, who himself was silenced when he was translating the Bible because he was seen to be undermining the power of religion in the state. When he completed the translation he said the following: “This Bible is translated and shall make possible a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Wycliffe understood that when people know the content of the faith, they will know the source of their freedom and the government will be a better institution. Abraham Lincoln picked it up years later. That is the power of faith to change the world and is the safest and most faithful way to practice theopolitics today Amen.