The Providence of God and Socio-Political Activism

By Desmond Allen, PhD, ThM, MDiv

 Introduction

Man has a long history of contending with God’s sovereignty and providence; for God’s plan often conflicts with man’s plan, or with man’s myopic view of justice. Sadly, this opposition is not limited to unbelievers, and even giants of the faith have struggled with it. From Abraham’s intervention to secure an heir with Hagar, and Peter drawing his sword to prevent Jesus’ arrest, to present-day Christendom’s persistent intervention in the socio-political affairs of this ungodly world, the failure of God’s saints to trust His providence is a common theme.

When Jesus told his disciples He would soon be killed, Peter adamantly objected, insisting that it would not happen. At which point Jesus rebuked him as a snare of Satan, for he was considering the things of men rather than the things of God (Mt 16:21-23). The term “consider” (φρονέω, phronéō) has the idea of thinking with interest, such as with affection or sentiment. However, when this interest or affection is myopically focused only on man’s worldview, it blurs reality and tempts us to interfere with providence.

Theoretical versus Practical Theology

Intellectually, in a theological academic sense, Christians accepts the doctrine of God’s sovereignty: That He alone has the absolute right to do all things according to his own good pleasure; that a man may plan his way, but God directs his steps (Re 4:11; Pr 16:9; 19:21); that God rules over the nations of the world, and orchestrating His plan for the Ages (Ps 22:28; 66:7; Eph 3:10). And Christians intellectually accept the doctrine of God’s providence: That with forethought and foresight God has a definite purpose; a plan for the ages as well as a plan for each saint (Col 1:16-17; Eph 3:11; Ro 8:28; 2Ti 1:9). However, to apply this theology in a practical way when the storm arrives is a different matter. We are prone to get ahead of God, to speed up and lose control, hydroplaning as the rubber no longer meets the road.

The patriarchs learned to trust God’s providence even when things looked bleak from a human perspective. Abraham obediently placed Isaac on the altar and drew his knife. In the midst of unbearable suffering, Job accepted God’s providence (Job 28:23-24). Joseph understood God’s providence and even explained it to his brothers (Ge 45:5; 50:20). Peter, having matured in faith, encouraged those who suffer persecution to accept God’s providence and to trust their souls to Him. Moreover, rather than calling for rebellion against the oppressive government, he called for their submission, explaining that it is for the Lord’s sake (1Pe 4:19; 2:13).

On the other hand, King Zedekiah, who also exemplified man’s myopic view of justice, did not learn to trust God’s providence, and he paid a horrific price for attempting to intervene. Due to their persistent and unrepentant sins, God judiciously employed the evil pagan King Nebuchadnezzar to take Judah captive. There, God would work on their repentance and holiness for the next 70 years. Although the prophet Jeremiah warned King Zedekiah to accept this reality, for it was of the Lord, Zedekiah believed he knew better than God and sought to thwart providence by fleeing to safety. Or so he thought, for when Nebuchadnezzar caught Zedekiah, he killed his children, put out his eyes, and carried him to Babylon, where he died (Jer 21-28).

As we see, God uses these evil governments to accomplish His purpose. Joseph’s captivity in Egypt protected and built Israel's family. Judah’s captivity in Babylon drew their hearts back to the Lord. Moreover, Rome’s persecution of Christians served to strengthen faith and spread the gospel throughout the world. Jesus spoke of this when Pilate tried to break His silence with intimidation. Pilate reminded Jesus that he had the authority to crucify Him. To which Jesus responded, telling Pilate that the only authority he had was that which had been granted to him from above (Jn 19:11). Once we come to grips with the reality of this statement, which is true of every world government, our myopic view begins to widen; we see things better, as if from God’s perspective.

Currently, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a malignant false practical theology has crept into Christendom, mingling freely among the flocks. Although it has completely consumed apostate liberal congregations, it is futile even to address the issue with them, for they have no regard for the authority of Scripture, other than the few passages they can take out of context to support their agenda. Indeed, their disregard for Scripture is such that one wonders why they continue to claim the name “Christian,” for they do not regard Christ to be the sole Savior of the world, and they also deny His deity. On the other hand, the segment of traditional Christendom that regards the inerrancy and authority of Scripture is the target audience, for the wolf has crept into many of these congregations as well.   

Sadly, despite teaching otherwise sound biblical theology, this false practical theology is promoted by many Christian leaders, which makes it especially distressing, in that it is their job to guard the flock from such errors. Furthermore, many faithful Christians are bold, proud practitioners of this ideology; and without doubt, like Peter and his sword, their intentions are pure; they even perceive it to be their duty, a vehicle by which Christendom diligently promotes righteousness. However, while it ostensibly advances righteousness, in truth, it actually promotes a lie of Satan, for it promotes a false righteousness and effectively neglects a fundamental doctrine of total depravity: “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Ro 3:10).

I speak of Christendom’s institutionalized socio-political activism. This agenda neglects God’s providence as well as the reality that men are in bondage to sin, void of the capacity to practice righteousness. Christians are expected to live morally and holy lives; having placed their trust in Jesus Christ, they are empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit. However, the unbeliever remains in bondage to sin and lacks the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome immoral behavior (Ro 6:12-20; Eph 2:1-3; 2Pe 2:19).

Harmful Socio-Political Activism

Christendom’s socio-political activism is not an innocuous activity; indeed, it is counterproductive to the Great Commission, for it abrogates, and even sabotages, the mission of evangelism. Christians cannot coerce the ungodly into righteousness; as servants of sin, they lack the freedom and power to pursue it. Even if we did somehow manage to legislate biblical standards, it would hinder, not enhance, evangelism. Two scenarios would occur simultaneously: rebellion among those wearied by coercion, and an increase of self-righteous thespians who believe they do not need the Savior; and, as good legalists, they would join the moralist reformers in coercing the wearied rebels.

Indeed, both of these scenarios are already a reality. Many unsaved opponents are so upset over the temporal socio-political issues of the moralists that they will not listen to anyone who speaks of Christ and eternal salvation. At the same time, Christians with a socio-political agenda have joined forces with other socio-political activists who are self-righteous purveyors of a false theology that rejects Christ (i.e., Mormonism), as if together they will establish the utopian kingdom of righteousness.

A society in spiritual darkness, ruled by moralists, does not promote evangelism, and when it is attempted, the results are disastrous. C. S. Lewis observed this with the wit we might expect:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their conscience. (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Paperback - 346 pp.; Eerdmans, 1994, p. 292).

Those who suffer under the tyranny of moral busybodies only comply under duress. They are always looking for an opportunity to rebel. They will never, in good faith, accept the moral totalitarianism which they despise.

Christians have never been told to establish a kingdom of righteousness. The command was to evangelize, which Jesus gave immediately after telling His disciples that He has supreme command over the earth (Mt 28:18-20). Far from being instruments of socio-political activism, as previously mentioned, Christians are to submit to governments (Ro 13:1; 1Pe 2:13-17).

Furthermore, it is important to understand that these commands were issued while they lived under the tyranny of the corrupt and evil Roman government. The same government that had crucified Jesus and would soon kill all the apostles, except John, whom they would torture and banish to the Isle of Patmos. Beyond Jesus and the apostles, Rome tortured and killed thousands of Christians by such means as crucifixion, having them torn apart by wild animals, even burning them as human torches to light the night. However, Roman tyranny was not reserved for Christians alone; they exercised their despotism without discrimination upon anyone they detested or merely rejected.

The world in which Jesus and the apostles lived was brutal. It was a hierarchical society in which slaves were at the bottom of the social structure, and void of any rights. Slightly above them were freed slaves, and then free-born citizens. Even free-born citizens were divided by class, so each had certain rights. The father, as head of the household, held complete control over his household, from slaves to relatives. It was called patria potestas, “father’s power.” He could force their marriage or divorce, claim their property as his own, or even sell his children into slavery. As patria potestas, he had the power to punish (even by death if he so desired) any member of his household.

We must realize that neither Jesus, the apostles, nor the early fathers of Christendom ever spoke out against Rome, or, much less, encouraged socio-political reformation. Jesus certainly spoke out against the injustices in Israel, the people of the covenant, and the apostles chastised Christians for their sin; but no one spoke out against the government of Rome, nor did they encourage their followers to do so.

Their lack of voice was not due to cowardice, or even to a lack of concern. Their silence stemmed from their sense of duty: evangelism, not socio-political reformation. Paul continued the passage concerning submission to the government with this warning that whoever resists such power is resisting the ordinance of God (Ro 13:2). Although a ruler may be evil, like King Nebuchadnezzar, he is the minister of God for good (Ro 13:4). This good may not be what man perceives with his myopic view of justice and reality, but it is a good that works toward the completion of God’s plan for the Ages; and, as Gamaliel observed, man cannot overthrow it, and to resist it is to fight against God (Ac 5:38-39).

If socio-political reform and the establishment of a godly government were the Christian’s mission, we would have received instructions for the same. Jesus would have addressed it. At least one apostle would have addressed it. However, Jesus did not. The apostles did not. Clearly, we see that the Messiah, Jesus Himself, will be establishing His holy kingdom upon His return (Isa 11; Re 20:4).

The History of Christian Political Intervention

The apostles came to understand that Christianity was not responsible for reforming, or even rebuking, government; their mission was to spread the gospel and make converts. This understanding persisted well into the 4th century. Then, things suddenly changed under the rule of Constantine the Great. The persecution ceased, and Constantine began building massive “Christian” cathedrals like the pagans had. He called for and funded the first council of bishops to settle the Arian heresy, and incorporated Christian morality into Roman law. With this, Christendom’s involvement in socio-political issues began. By the end of the 4th century, Theodosius I had outlawed paganism and made Christianity the official state religion, which further solidified Christendom’s misguided entanglement with government affairs. By the time of Charlemagne in the 9th century, political authority and the state version of Christendom were completely intertwined, and he embarked on a decidedly ungodly military campaign to force Christianity upon the Frankish Empire. At the end of the 11th century, more ungodly military campaigns were designed to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims; ironically, they were called the “Holy Crusades.” Then, in the 15th century, an even more ungodly military campaign, the Spanish Inquisition, took place under the political arm of Christendom and was also considered holy.  

Although the Great Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries broke from the corrupt, state-controlled version of Christendom, some continued to mix government influence with theology and establish various territorial socio-political Christian communities. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, socio-political issues and political reform came to dominate various forms of liberal and progressive Christendom, so these matters became more of a concern than the veracity of Scripture itself. Then, in the mid- to late 20th century, Christians from various theologically conservative associations and denominations formed political alignments aimed at passing legislation in favor of morality and biblical principles, which led to the political notion of Christian Nationalism, wherein the nation is viewed as a Christian nation, in which government should represent and legislate biblical principles.

Currently, a sharp, polarizing divide exists between these two aberrant socio-political versions of Christendom. One is evangelical with a socio-political agenda of legislating biblical morality, which works against their evangelical mission. The other is passive, having rejected that Christ is the only means of salvation and that biblical morality is a valid concern; its agenda is purely that of socio-political reform, but in a way exactly opposite the other.   

Conclusion

May this short treatise serve as a strong warning to those Christians being led astray down the fruitless path of socio-political reform, which is but the clever ploy of our enemy. In chess, we refer to this tactic as deflection: a move designed to draw the opponent’s piece away from attacking or defending an important square. Here, our enemy tempts us to chase these bogus, temporal objectives so he might draw us away from the critical, eternal issue, the Great Commission.

No Christian nation has ever existed, nor has there ever been a command to establish one. Governments come and go like foliage; they are temporal. Some are better than others, but try as we might, no movement, no religion, no government will ever achieve a righteous society. Even ancient Israel under God’s indirect leadership through Moses, the judges, and the kings, failed to achieve righteousness. The world will be converted; the kingdom of God will be established on earth; righteousness will reign; and social conditions will be rectified; but only when Christ returns. All efforts to force socio-political reform before then are sadly misdirected and necessarily futile.

Not only is socio-political reform a hopeless endeavor, but those Christians who attempt it necessarily find themselves in alliance with unbelievers and the self-righteous religious purveyor of a false doctrine that denies Christ’s Deity. Righteous King Jehoshaphat found himself in a similar situation when, due to mutual political concerns, he joined the evil King Ahab against the Syrians. However, Jehu rebuked King Jehoshaphat sharply, “Should you help the wicked, and love them that hate Yahweh? Therefore, wrath is come upon you from Yahweh” (2Ch 19:2).