AP

There are many ways to lose friends. We live in days when everybody is an expert, with or without expertise. There is much that is decidedly unhealthy about the zeitgeist. As someone who reads history – and revels in it – politics is something that has its attractions. Not all Christians are called to be involved in it, but some political awareness is surely in order, and Christians have a real place in the public arena, even in the legislature and executive. There are those who say the pulpit is precisely the place to preach politics, and others who say the opposite. So, without engaging into any sophisticated attempt to contribute to public theology, a few principles might be in order.

Preach boldly on clear biblical issues

John the Baptist took on Herod Antipas over Herod’s marrying Herodias who was formerly married to Philip, Herod’s own brother (Mark 6:17-18). That this cost John his life is no argument against the rightness of what he did. Kings are answerable to the King of heaven. There are many issues, ancient and modern, where a clear and unequivocal stance is what is required.

Abortion is one of those. The Bible says what any reputable medical textbook says, that life begins not at birth or at twenty weeks in utero, or any other arbitrary place, but at conception (e.g. Psalm 139:13-16; Luke 1:41, 44). The Son of God Himself entered Mary’s womb as an embryo! (Matt.1:18-25) To kill a child in the womb is to kill a child created in God’s image. Euthanasia is another such issue. A patient can refuse treatment – for example, when the chemotherapy does more harm than good – but we do not have the right to take away another’s life, even in the name of mercy and compassion.

Another burning issue of today is same-sex unions. God denounces these as abominations (Lev.18:22), contrary to nature (Rom.1:26-27), and indicative of a lifestyle which excludes one from the kingdom of God (1 Cor.6:9-10). It takes a great deal of unsanctified ingenuity to explain these texts away, and still claim to be a faithful Christian. As for transgenderism, ‘can a man bear a child?’ (Jer.30:6) Once upon a time we all knew the answer to that.

Other issues require a little more work. Slavery is, I believe, clear, but if one restricts oneself to a few examples of proof-texting, the result is less than helpful. Slavery was endorsed by God in the Old Testament but, for the most part, it was a form of punishment which was especially applicable in matters of theft. A Hebrew slave could obtain his freedom after six years (Ex.21:2; see too Lev.25:39-41 for the Year of Jubilee); and kidnapping was a capital offense (Ex.21:16; see too 1 Tim.1:8-11). New Testament slavery is not Old Testament slavery but Roman slavery. The defenders of slavery in the southern states of the USA in the nineteenth century often simply cited an injunction like ‘Slaves, obey your earthly masters’ (Eph.6:5), as if that settled the issue. For the apostle Paul to garner together a petition against the institution of slavery, and present it to the emperor, would have been politically unrealistic. To lead a slave revolt, as did Spartacus, would have been to add to the sum total of human misery.

In order to justify Southern slavery, the distinguished Presbyterian theologian, James Henley Thornwell, said of the Church: ‘It has no commission to reconstruct society.’[1] In his view, ‘The [golden] rule [viz Matt.7:12] then simply requires, in the case of slavery, that we should treat our slaves as we should feel that we had a right to be treated if we were slaves ourselves.’[2] This approach surely, as even the moderate Charles Hodge observed, unduly muzzled the Church. ‘There are occasions,’ wrote Hodge in an article on ‘The State of the Country’ published in the ecclesiastical Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, ‘when political questions rise into the sphere of morals and religion; when the rule for political action is to be sought, not in considerations of state policy but in the law of God. On such occasions, the distinction between secular and religious journals is obliterated.’[3] The ‘spirituality’ of the Church is not always easily defined.

The issue of immigration, including the reception of refugees, is one that easily arouses more passions than clear thinking. Australia is not Israel, but Israel was called upon by God to remember the ill-treatment that they had received as slaves in Egypt, and so not to replicate that with regard to sojourners within the bounds of the Promised Land (Lev.19:33-34; Deut.24:17-18). Ruth, from the land of Moab, was one such immigrant who was to be treated with justice, compassion, and love (e.g. Ruth 2:12). This is not necessarily to advocate an open borders policy, but Christians ought to be aware that Australia has such a low birth-rate – about 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age when the replacement figure is about 2.1 – that a high immigration intake has become almost an economic necessity. Governments would do well to curb the transgender propaganda, the provision of abortion, and the assumption that women are more fulfilled as human beings by sitting on corporate boards rather than by bearing children. Another issue is the naivety associated with immigrants. Not all immigrants are the same, and border protection is not inherently unchristian.

The goal of public theology is not political neutrality nor is it to pontificate on every issue as though God had ordained such an approach. In the political arena, there is much that the outsider does not know, and cannot know. In my view, the whole climate change debate – if there is one – would have been better framed as ‘creation care’, on which the Bible does speak (Deut.20:19-20; Ex.23:10-11; Lev.25:1-7). Some of the heat, so to speak, might have gone out of the slanging matches.

There is a moral order to life. God has priorities, and the Church would do well to blow the trumpet of God on clear issues of justice, mercy and faithfulness (Matt.23:23). Christ is Lord of everything, but the Church is not obliged to comment on everything. In its rush down the Gadarene slope the General Synod of the Church of England met in February 2026, and carried a motion in favour of sustainable flowers in church. Being bland is possibly an improvement on being heretical.

Pastors woo as well as warn

It is an obvious misreading of the Old Testament to claim that Israel was simply a theocracy. Something like Montesquieu’s separation of powers can be detected, with an underlying commitment to God as He had revealed Himself in His Word. In the fifth century B.C. Ezra was the scribe and teacher of the law; while Nehemiah was the governor who supervised the rebuilding of the wall around Jerusalem. They cooperated, but they did not have roles that were completely interchangeable.

During the monarchy, the legitimate king came from the tribe of Judah, and the priesthood came from the tribe of Levi. Hence there could be no priest-kings, as in the days of the pagan Roman empire when the emperor was also the Pontifex Maximus (the high priest). King Saul and King Uzziah both incurred the displeasure of the Lord by adopting the role of a priest and offering sacrifices (1 Sam.13:8-15; 2 Chron.26:16-21).

In times of exile, as in the sixth century B.C. when most of the remnant of Judah was living in Babylon, the covenant people of God were told to build houses and raise families and ‘seek the welfare of the city’ (Jer.29:5-7). They were to remain faithful within the confines of living in a pagan culture.

In the days of the Roman Empire, when madmen sat on the imperial throne, the apostle Peter still pointed out that the task of civil authorities was to administer justice, to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good (1 Peter 2:13-14; see Rom.13:1-7). In many societies down through the ages, the question for the Christian is not: ‘How can I make a difference for Christ in the public arena?’ William Wilberforce could ask that question, and those of us in the West still can. But in North Korea and Saudi Arabia the question is more like: ‘How can I live faithfully in a society where I can have zero political influence?’

To one who wanted Jesus to settle a family dispute over inheritance, our Lord replied: ‘Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?’ (Luke 12:14) Yet Christ is ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’! (Rev.19:16) If the former verse looks like political neutrality, and the latter verse like rampant theonomy, that is surely because our understanding of them is too wooden.

For all his emphasis on discipleship and his critiques of ‘cheap grace’, Dietrich Bonhoeffer never lost sight of free grace, and considered that ‘A truly evangelical sermon must be like offering a child a beautiful red apple or holding out a glass of water to a thirsty man and asking: “Wouldn’t you like it?”‘^[4] That should be a frequent note in our sermons. Vehemence and outrage do not advance the kingdom (James 1:20). It is all too easy to give way to the spirit of Jehu, who is convinced of his own zeal and righteousness, but ultimately rejected by God (see Hos.1:4; 2 Kings 9-10). The Bible convicts of sin and offers forgiveness of sin. These are interdependent, and both are needed.

The apostle Paul did not see it as his brief to draw up a plan for the civil regeneration of the Roman Empire. His main task was to proclaim the Gospel by urging repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). The impact of Christianity is an important point for the Christian to make, but the primary goal of the evangelist is not social cohesion or even social flourishing. As one who sat in the British House of Commons for forty-five years (1780-1825), William Wilberforce sought to be in the world without being of it: ‘The great thing we have to do, is to be perpetually reminding ourselves that we are but strangers and pilgrims, having no abiding city, but looking for a city which hath foundations.’[5] Indeed, we are sojourners and exiles here (1 Pet.2:11).

The laity tend to do politics better than pastors do

In the light of what the New Testament says about what pastors are to concentrate on (proclaiming Christ as the Lord who is also Saviour) and what civil authorities are to look to achieve (as much civil justice as can be achieved in a fallen world), it ought not to be a surprise that pastors have not usually been called to be politicians. It would be easy to point to cardinals in seventeenth century France – men such as Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin – who served ungodly kings better than they did the King of kings. There are exceptions to this ‘rule’. Abraham Kuyper became Prime Minister of Netherlands in 1901-1905, without losing his heartfelt desire to draw near to God.

Yet the general truth is that Christian laymen in politics tend to know how the system works – or doesn’t work – and so may possess the right kind of shrewdness. Wilberforce, for example, was willing to try to mitigate the evils of the slave trade, but his unswerving view was that ‘At one period, under one set of circumstances, it may be proper to push, at another, and in other circumstances, to withhold our efforts; but in the present instance, where the actual commission of guilt is in question, a man who fears God is not at liberty.’[6]

Politics is over-rated

There are those who would under-rate the importance of politics, but there is also a significant danger in over-rating it. The great Samuel Johnson spent his life fearing he could lose his mind, but he need not have worried. He remained a man of faith and of sanctified common sense. A saying of his which we could well learn from today is:

How small, of all that human hearts endure,

That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!

John Newton pointed out the need for more than political action. Referring to God’s provision of governments, he wrote: ‘His ordinance of civil government is one great means of preserving the peace of society; but this is in many cases inadequate. The heart of man, when fully bent upon evil, will not be intimidated or stopped by gibbets and racks.’[7] A greater motive, declared Newton, is the love of God.

To return to the example of William Wilberforce, he knew the difference between influence and power, and so refused to serve in cabinet. C. S. Lewis was probably being a little too Manichean in some of his political comments, but they are forgivable: ‘For, above all other spheres of human life, the Devil claims politics for his own, as almost the citadel of his power.’[8] Lewis knew that the way for Christians to have an impact on society was not necessarily through political power and social prestige measured by hits on social media. In December 1951 he was asked to accept a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), but declined in a letter to the secretary to Winston Churchill, the Conservative Prime Minister. Here he explained: ‘There are always … knaves who say, and fools who believe, that my religious writings are all covert anti-Leftist propaganda, and appearance in the Honours List would of course strengthen their hands.’[9] To Lewis, the role of the Christian in society was not to be reduced to gleaning as much influence as possible in the name of Christ.

Evil has a disproportionate effect on this world (Eccles.10:1), and there will always be the tears of the oppressed (Eccles.4:1). The political movement most to be feared is the one which indulges in Messianic rhetoric, which majors on promises and has no deep sense of the universality of sin. It is a little unfair to Tom Holland, but he seems to believe that political disputes in the West are much ado about nothing. So, he says that ‘America’s culture wars were less a war against Christianity than a civil war between Christian factions’.[10] Trump and Biden apparently represented the political equivalent of different denominations. In reality, neither could save America.

Attempts at a quick fix are likely to leave in their wake a great body of deluded or disillusioned people. Instead, be faithful to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). Political action has its rightful place, but it is the gospel that is the power of God for salvation (Rom.1:16).

[1] James Henley Thornwell, The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol.4, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1875, reprinted 1986, p.383.

[2] Bradley Longfield, Presbyterians and American Culture, Louisville: WJKPress, 2013, p.98.

[3] See especially Alan D. Strange, The Doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church in the Ecclesiology of Charles Hodge, Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2017, p.239.

^[4] Clyde Fant, Bonhoeffer: Worldly Preaching, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1975, pp.16, 112.

[5] Robert Isaac Wilberforce and Samuel Wilberforce, The Life of William Wilberforce, vol. 1, London, 1838, p.109.

[6] Robert Isaac Wilberforce and Samuel Wilberforce, The Life of William Wilberforce, vol. 2, London, 1838, p.22.

[7] John Newton, ‘On Man in His Fallen Estate’, in Works, vol.1, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, reprinted in 2015, p.362.

[8] Walter Hooper (ed.), The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, volume III, New York: HarperCollins, 2007, p.358 (for August 10, 1953).

[9] Walter Hooper (ed.), The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, volume III, New York: HarperCollins, 2007, p.147 (for December 4, 1951).

[10] Tom Holland, Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind, London: Abacus, 2020, pp.514-515.

– Peter Barnes