i tend to agree with what you’ve written. as i think about these things, one thing i can definitely say is that i do not think the pulpit is the place for political activism. it’s the place for theological activism, with admonitions of orthodoxy & prophetic calls for orthopraxy (i may have just coined something!). good response, thanks for the dialogue

fyi, i added you to the coveted list of “sites i check out” on the righthand column of my blog; now expect literally dozens (lol) more people to know about your blog!

later bro

However, when I consider a group of persecuted churches in a particular region today, I find no justification from Scripture to suggest that their leaders stand up against the abusive powers that be. Rather, I see the summary exhortation in the NT as something like: “Stand firm (in the faith), submit where possible, and give Gospel-witness.”

I am less sure about the role of churches in places where persecution is not common (like here in the USA). We have certain rights and perhaps even obligations to promote justice within our own country (whose government is supposed to be of the people). (I will be reflecting on submission in the Roman Empire on Tuesday and later posting thoughts on what the US constitution has to do with civil submission in the USA context.)

More broadly, I think that any church should condemn abusive regimes, including our own when guilty (obviously we shouldn’t be found supporting abuse). I wonder, though, who cares what the church thinks (in most places around the world). I tend to think that resources are better served in more explicit evangelistic activities. I don’t find Paul taking up a pulpit except to preach Christ. This doesn’t mean he didn’t care about injustice, but his priority was not political activism. Difficult question… but I it will probably come up again in the next week or two. Thanks for the discussion!

let’s say the gospel & eternal things are our first priority (and i truly feel that way). let’s consider that to be a given. with that, does the church have ANY responsibility to act or speak when it witnesses the empire abusing or oppressing a third party? i sort of let you off the hook when you’re answer was basically that eternal things are the priority lol. i think bonhoeffer would have totally agreed with you, but he also chose to act & speak against the state and for the jews. these issues may not come in america (or, we may not choose to see them), but they do come up.

so, in the spirit of friendly conversation, what’s your take on the church’s responsibility when it comes to the empire abusing another group, a third party who is not the church. i’m honestly still formulating my opinions in this area, but i’m leaning towards the church taking up the mantle of its prophetic voice.

The second issue you bring up is interesting. It seems to me that those who emphasize the need for social justice heavily emphasize the ministry of Jesus in the Gospels (and rightly so). I understand this, but I must consider the fact that I’m not the Messiah–I don’t have the ability to call the weary and heavy-laden to myself. What can I do? I can call the weary and heavy-laden to the Messiah. As I reflect on the NT as a whole, I think ultimate social justice is yet future and only available via redemption. Even the justice called for by God in the nation of Israel was never fully realized. Even so, I should be very clear: I still believe there is biblical precedent for providing for the needs of the down-trodden. At the same time, I think the most pressing concern has to do with everlasting provisions.