Thoughts on the Church’s True Nature and Mission: A Partial Rejoinder to Larry Ball’s Challenge to the Spirituality of the Church
The church has a definite purpose to accomplish, which her Lord has provided her with the authority, gifts, and power to achieve. It is her business to make disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded. This will often result in great social, economic, and political consequences, yet the church’s purpose is not to seek socio-political reform as such, but to reconcile men to God so that, being in the right relation to him, they may in turn stand in the right relation to their fellow men.
What is called ‘the spirituality of the church’ seems to be rather unfashionable at present. In its most recent consideration we find longtime PCA minister Larry Ball inveighing against what he regards as its weaknesses. He says:
The term “spirituality of the church” has become one of those phrases that often stops all further conversation about the relationship between church and state. Few Christians ever question the meaning of the phrase. It assumes that the church should remain silent about all political matters. Although the expression does not appear in any of our confessional standards, it has become a doctrine of Presbyterianism as sacrosanct as any one of the five points of Calvinism. No one is allowed to challenge it without being labeled with a pejorative term.
I fear, as a supporter of the truth which this purports to challenge, that I shall contradict nearly everything above. I shall question the meaning of the phrase spirituality of the church. I shall deny that the concept requires silence about all political matters. I shall dissent from the suggestion that it is as sacrosanct as the doctrines of grace, and shall ponder its church-state implications. Above all, I shall forgo labeling Larry Ball pejoratively for challenging it.
Ball first inveighs against interpreting the term in light of “Greek dualism” that “assumes that the spiritual is the higher good and that the physical is the source of evil.” That would be mistaken, but I am not aware that anyone does such a thing.[1] The spirituality of the church does not refer to the church’s essence, as such, nor posit that other institutions like the state have a lower essence. Its corollary is not ‘the physicality of the state.’ A solely spiritual, non-corporeal essence can only be asserted of the church triumphant in heaven. The church militant on earth is a physical, visible institution that does indeed have physical concerns that fall under its purview, not least in its charitable and diaconal affairs.
He then inveighs against the church’s spirituality if it “means that the church must not speak to political issues because we live in a pluralistic society, and we must not impose our views on others.” This is a large topic, full consideration of which is not possible here. He is correct that the church should not refrain from truth-telling merely for fear of offending infidels. If we keep silent we may rest assured that others will not. However, there is scriptural warrant for not giving needless offense (Acts 15:19-22) and for not taking the side of any political faction (1 Cor. 1:10-16; 3:3-4; see footnote).[2] The spirituality of the church does not mean keeping quiet to avoid offending per se, but it does mean refraining from behavior that does not directly fall under her duty of making disciples. The question in any case of proposed church action is whether it is a part of that duty, and if it is not then she ought to refrain from it.
Third, he says that the concept is sound if it “means that there are two realms ordained by God and they must remain separate.” This is close to what is properly in view in the ‘spirituality of the church.’ The state and the church are both ordained by God (Matt. 22:21), the former to rule in civil and the latter in spiritual affairs. There is some overlap in their respective concerns, however, which makes it somewhat unhelpful to speak of two realms that “must remain separate.” In addition, there are other authorities established by God (especially the parental/familial) that have their place in human affairs.
While the church does not have any business administering the affairs of the state or family, and vice versa, the church is nonetheless still subject to the state’s authority. She must comply with fire codes, abuse reporting requirements, etc., and her officers are as liable to criminal prosecution and civil liability as other citizens. In addition, there are matters which fall under the jurisdiction of both church and state. An abuser would incur the church’s censure and the state’s indictment, for example, and there are many matters that receive the ban of both church and state in their respective capacities as ministerial/declarative and force-wielding authorities (say, polygamy). It would perhaps be better to say that there are different aspects of life in this world that are governed by these various authorities in their different ways.
Now I assert the following. First, the term ‘spirituality of the church’ is not the best available. Its weakness is that ‘spirituality’ has several meanings, and that it is not obvious which of these is in view. Spirituality/spiritual can mean having a spiritual essence; being guided by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13, 15); dealing with the invisible realm that includes angels (Eph. 6:12); or can refer to the part of man that animates his body.
Many of the proponents of what is called the spirituality of the church do not use that exact term: it does not appear in Thornwell, who gave the doctrine in “its most classic form” (in Sean Lucas’ phrase), nor in Stuart Robinson’s The Church of God As An Essential Element of the Gospel that David Coffin – probably our most learned minister on this topic – regards as the masterpiece on the doctrine. Dabney refers to the concept as “the church’s spiritual independence” in discussing a minister who suffered on its account. Elsewhere C.R. Vaughn called it “the non-secular character of the church.” The exact phrase “spirituality of the church” first appears, as near as I can tell (but I am no authority here), in Henry Van Dyke Sr.’s speech objecting to the General Assembly’s actions regarding the United States’ war aims in 1864. (And inconveniently for the scholars who like to imagine that the concept was dreamed up by southerners to justify slavery, he happened to be a minister in Brooklyn.) It occurs only twice in that speech, which is called “The Spirituality and Independence of the Church.”
What term is preferable then? The truth in view does arise from the church’s concern with spiritual affairs and its powers of government and teaching being spiritual in nature. Yet it also arises from the church’s independence viz., other authorities, as well as from its role as an ambassador of Christ that represents his claims to the world (which also implies its independence and otherness). For my part, I do not think the concept requires a single term, nor that it is always advantageous to summarize all that it entails with a single phrase. It is an inferred doctrine, in many respects, that arises from various aspects of the church’s nature, role, and relations, and in many cases, it is best discussed at length.
Second, the concept does not preclude all political involvement. The church reserves the right to treat those things that would infringe upon her independence, such as laws restricting her freedom of speech or ability to assemble. Vaughn speaks of the church having “political duties,” says “these duties when done involve no breach whatever on its true spiritual sphere,” and objects to the northern church’s “political deliverances” because they were excessive and “entirely transcended the duty of the church” (emphasis mine).
Third, the doctrine is largely useless as a defense against ‘social justice’ in the church if taken in isolation. For on the conception of our would-be reformers, all matters are moral and have spiritual significance: for them politics is the highest expression of piety, for they believe that the prophetic injunctions to seek justice entail their version of justice, rather than the particular requirements of God’s law (Isa. 8:20). To be useful the doctrine has to be abetted by polemics that show the social activists’ aims and notions are incorrect. It is insufficient to simply say the church is a spiritual/redemptive institution, for they believe social justice is of the essence of redemption and pure spirituality. The concept must not proceed alone, then, but in company with other arguments and teachings about the nature of justice, salvation, individual responsibility before God, etc.
Fourth, the doctrine assumes the separation of church and state, but is not strictly synonymous with it. Saying that church and state are separate does not necessarily say anything about the proper nature and function of each, nor discuss their proper relations in those matters in which both have a part (e.g., morality). Even established churches have the duty of not meddling in most affairs of state, hence Van Dyke quotes the Anglican Toplady criticizing the divines of his church for bumbling by involvement in politics.
Fifth, the doctrine is meant to defend the church from being co-opted by politicians and the state, to the neglect of its concern with redemptive affairs. Those people who are infamous for their expediency and lack of scruples, for whom even plain honesty and simplicity of speech are too much to ask, would not hesitate to use the holy church of God for mere political advantage, thus making it worldly, profaning its message, and turning its focus from heaven to earth. In such an unholy alliance of the spiritual and the political the church would be reduced to a propaganda arm to a certain wing of their constituents, but would receive little of spiritual significance in return.
Sixth, the concept is somewhat embattled in that its greatest opponent, the revolutionary spirit, wishes to subsume everything under itself and has, as such, brought practically all matters into controversy. We live in an age in which everything is political because there is a great body of men in this country who wish for everything to be subjected to the control of the state down to the most minute particulars. It is a matter of political controversy to assert there are only two sexes. It is a matter of politics to spank one’s own offspring. It is a matter of politics for the church to exist or operate at all; and that arises, not because she has transgressed the distinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical, but because her enemies have done so. She may expect to be accused of indefensible meddling where she does not belong as a matter of course, for her very existence is hateful to many. Yet that does not mean that she should regard the matter of civil/ecclesiastical distinctions as a moot point and throw herself wholly into the arms of the enemies of her enemies. She has a proper mission of spiritual redemption even where she is the target of political opposition.
Now I have been writing inductively, as it were, discussing various facets of this important concept without giving a clear definition of it. In sum, what is in view is that the church has a definite purpose to accomplish, which her Lord has provided her with the authority (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10), gifts (Eph. 4:7-16), and power (Acts 1:8) to achieve. It is her business to make disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). This will often result in great social (Acts 17:6; 19:19), economic (Acts 19:25-28), and political consequences, yet the church’s purpose is not to seek socio-political reform as such (Jn. 18:36), but to reconcile men to God so that, being in the right relation to him, they may in turn stand in the right relation to their fellow men (Matt. 22:37-40; Jn. 13:34-35; Gal. 5:13-14; 1 Tim. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:13-25; 1 Jn. 4:4-20). The corollary of this is that activities which are not directly involved in this mission are excluded from the proper realm of church action. This includes all questions of a purely political or social character, and many others (educational, philanthropic, artistic, etc.) besides. For the church to give itself to such affairs is to transgress the proper bounds of its task and to risk being weighed down with the affairs of this life (Lk. 21:34) to the neglect of fulfilling its appointed task.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name.
[1] The real dualistic conception is between the kingdom of Christ and that of Satan.
[2] If intra-ecclesiastical factions are forbidden, as the passages from 1 Corinthians here suggest, how much more alliances between believers and unbelievers in questions of temporal politics (comp. 2 Cor. 6:14-16) in which believers themselves might be divided (comp. 1 Cor. 6:1-8)!
-
Moms and the Mission of God
As we imperfectly love, instruct, and discipline our children, our heavenly Father perfectly loves, instructs, and disciplines us. God uses motherhood to fulfill His mission in us: to sanctify us and conform us to Christ’s image. We fulfill the mission of God as mothers as we glorify Him. When we serve our families, we are serving the Lord Jesus Christ (Col. 3:24). Even before our efforts bear any other fruit, our obedience brings glory to God. This truth can bring encouragement when our parenting efforts feel futile.
When I was a teenager, my best friend and I loved to discuss parenting. We analyzed the parenting differences we saw in families around us and tried to connect the dots between parents’ actions and the children’s success. Sometimes the outcomes within a family varied widely, and we wanted to understand why. It’s no wonder that we both went on to be psychology majors in college.
Now that I’m parenting three teenagers, I sometimes fall into a similar results-based mentality. Most of my adult life has been focused on raising children, and I hope my efforts will bear fruit as my children enter adulthood. It’s tempting to think that my children’s worldly success or biblical faithfulness determines whether I fulfilled the mission of God as their mother. But I also know that only God is sovereign over my children’s hearts and lives. They are the Lord’s vessels, not mine (Isa. 64:8). I need a shift in my thinking about God’s mission for motherhood.
Long before the fruit of our labor is revealed, our motherhood fulfills the mission of God when we glorify Him by humbly and obediently laying down our lives for our children. In our daily tasks of instructing, disciplining, and caring for our children, God gives us opportunities to pass along the truth of His Word to the next generation. He uses our work as mothers to conform us to the image of His Son and to increase our dependence on Him. And He is glorified when we obey His call to serve our families sacrificially.
Motherhood Affects Our Children
When my firstborn child was just a toddler, a friend made a casual comment that shaped the way I talked with my kids from that point on. She told me how her own mother constantly pointed her grandchildren to the Lord by connecting everything back to Him. Instead of saying, “Look at the beautiful flowers,” she would say, “Look at the beautiful flowers God made and how He’s given us the gift of their beauty.” Her words were a constant reminder of a Creator who cares for us.
Read MoreRelated Posts:
-
Committee Report on Church Music
One thing both traditional and contemporary churches could agree on is the participation of church members in congregational singing. If unity cannot be found here, then the issues that divide are presuppositional and theological. The Church, whether Presbyterian or not, is divided about music, but it is certain that all of us will be singing the same words and tunes before the Throne, but could we not make an effort to unify on congregants singing in worship?
As was noted in the post, “Contemporary Christian Church Music,” which provided a transcription of an article by T. E. Peck and Stuart Robinson—worship of the Lord in song has been a controversial subject particularly since the gradual transition from exclusive psalmody in the eighteenth century to inclusion of hymns by composers such as Isaac Watts. The words of Ephesians 5:19, “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” have been interpreted differently by those using Psalms alone and those who include hymns with Psalms.
The transcription that follows is from the minutes of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Old School, General Assembly of 1849, and it addresses this controversy. A committee had been appointed to make recommendations regarding church music, and it appears, though I am not certain, there were no ruling elders seated. The Committee on Church Music had been appointed the previous year by Moderator Alexander T. McGill but its membership changed as some appointees were excused and others were given their seats. When the report was submitted, it was signed by the following members:: John M. Krebs, (Rutgers Street Church, New York) James W. Alexander (Duane Street Church, New York), Daniel V. McLean (Freehold, New Jersey), William S. Plumer (Franklin Street Church, Baltimore), Gardiner Spring (Brick Church, New York), George Potts (University Place Church, New York), Willis Lord (Penn Square Church, Philadelphia), Charles C. Beatty (Second Church, Steubenville, Ohio), and William Jeffery (Bethany Church, Herriottsville, Pennsylvania).
What specifically was the committee to address regarding church music?
In 1843 the Old School Presbyterian Board of Publication issued Psalms and Hymns Adapted to Social, Private and Public Worship in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, which was printed in Philadelphia. It included the complete Psalter of Isaac Watts followed by 680 hymns. In a modern hymnal the music is provided with the words but in earlier hymnals, as with this one, only the words are given. Each hymn is headed with a few words describing its topic and a notation regarding the meter to which it is sung. The hymns are not titled. This seems unusual today given hymnals have the words and music for each one and a title, but the 1843 hymnal shows the transition from Psalm singing alone to Psalms and hymns. Psalms for singing simply had the number of the Psalm, the meter, and then the words. The brief preface to the 798-page collection expressed the hope that—
The collection itself comprehends what were supposed [assumed] to be the best hymns in the one now in use, with a large addition from other sources, and in sufficient variety, it is presumed, to meet all the wants of worshippers.
Unfortunately, the hymnal did not “meet all the wants of worshippers,” which resulted in the appointment of the Committee on Church Music. The instrument by which the church music issue came to the floor of the Assembly was an overture from the Synod of Philadelphia which the Committee on Bills and Overtures reviewed and then made its recommendation.
[To] report to the next General Assembly upon the general subject of congregational singing, suggesting such scriptural measures as may seem calculated to improve it, and such remedies of existing evils as the case may seem to require. The recommendation was adopted.
The primary concern for the Committee on Church Music was improving congregational singing during worship on the Lord’s Day. As an aside, it is interesting that the 1843 hymnal designates one section “For the Lord’s Day” and not “For the Sabbath,” as might be expected. The secondary concern for the Committee was “preparation of a book of tunes adapted to our present psalmody.” Presumably, the thinking was, if tunes were more singable for the average non-musically trained congregant to sing, then more people would sing.
Congregational participation in singing is clearly not a new problem. Robinson-Peck and the report of the Committee on Church Music that follows this introduction mention factors contributing to lack of participation such as overemphasizing the choir, viewing worship music as entertainment, and the use of hired professional non-congregation members to bolster (supplant?) the congregation. On several occasions, while traveling I have worshipped in other Presbyterian churches and noticed that people simply do not sing. It is not a matter of a few here and there not singing, but instead a few here and there are singing. This is true of churches whether they are considered traditional or contemporary (these terms are used reluctantly for convenience), but it seems the more music is emphasized in a service, ironically, the less the participation of the congregation. Though the number appears to be waning, there are churches that have singing congregants. I have the privilege of membership with a congregation that sings well with a skilled director and talented accompanists under the oversight of elders who are concerned for regulated worship. Worship is not a traditional vs. contemporary issue; worship is a theological issue in that its purpose is glorifying God as we enjoy Him within the limits of liturgy given in Scripture.
I said in my introduction to the Robinson-Peck post that the Old School took a moderate position regarding the issue of church music. What I mean by moderate is the Old School did not limit its worship music to Psalms, but instead combined hymns of contemporary composition with those of the past. The addition of hymns is not only appropriate but necessary. But this raises some questions. Which hymns are to be added? What is the standard to be used (of course, Scripture, but how)? Is there an essential core of hymns that must never be removed? Are there tunes that are unacceptable, and if so, what makes them unacceptable for worship (sexual beat, originally used with worldly or atheistic lyrics)? Can adding new hymns work against the goal of united congregational singing; can removing old hymns likewise reduce congregational singing? Are the older members of congregations to be left out as too much emphasis is placed on new words and tunes (the age demographic of the United States is increasing )? Those who sing the Psalms exclusively have an advantage because the words of their worship in music are fixed, but they too may face the challenge of congregants wanting the words of Psalms updated with more up-to-date tunes. Church history, unfortunately, is often the study of division whether it was the Christological issues of the ancient church, division with the Reformation, the Old and New Schools, and many others. The issue of church music divides us as well. However, one thing both traditional and contemporary churches could agree on is the participation of church members in congregational singing. If unity cannot be found here, then the issues that divide are presuppositional and theological. The Church, whether Presbyterian or not, is divided about music, but it is certain that all of us will be singing the same words and tunes before the Throne, but could we not make an effort to unify on congregants singing in worship.
With regard to the report that follows, I found some of the comments objectionable not necessarily because of what was said but because of the way it was said. The General Assembly is the highest earthly court of the Presbyterian Church and its decency and honor should be beyond the expected in all matters. Intemperance, personal attacks, sarcasm, smart-aleck jabs, and patronizing comments have no place in the Church in general but especially in gatherings of presbyters.
Barry Waugh
Report of The Committee on Church Music
The Committee on the subject of Sacred Music, appointed by the General Assembly last year (see Minutes, A. D. 1848, pp. 18 and 55) respectfully report, that six members of the Committee, viz. the Chairman, and Messrs. Plumer, Potts, Lord, McKinley, and McNair, met, agreeably to appointment at Philadelphia on the 20th day of February last, and proceeded to the consideration of the duty which had been confided to them. After making some progress therein, the Committee, having sat through three days, adjourned, referring the further prosecution and completion of the work to the members residing in the city of New York, and authorizing them to present the result of their labors to the next Assembly.
At the commencement of their sessions, the Committee were occupied with a question concerning the extent of their powers. The overture from the Synod of Philadelphia, (see overture, number 3, Minutes, 1848, p. 18,) contemplated the appointment of “a committee to take into consideration the subject of Church Music, with special reference to the preparation of a book of tunes adapted to our present psalmody.” The Assembly’s resolution, appointing the Committee, conferred upon it no other power, expressly, than “to report to the next General Assembly, upon the general subject of congregational singing, suggesting such scriptural measures as may seem calculated to improve it, and such remedies of existing evils as the case may seem to require.” While the overture appears to embrace two points, viz. a report upon the subject, and some provision for a book of tunes, the act of the Assembly authorizes a mere report, with suggestions on certain specified points, and makes no express reference to the preparation of a book of tunes.
On the first point submitted to their consideration, the Committee offer the following remarks:
There are different opinions, in various parts of the Church, in regard to the present state of congregational singing. What the taste and usages of the churches, in one section, may highly approve, other churches, possibly, would disapprove. Conformity, in all points of opinion and practice, is, perhaps—nay, most probably—unattainable. And, in cases wherein the differences arise, not in view of unmistakable decisions of the Bible, or of our Standards, but simply from considerations of taste, convenience, longer or shorter usage, and varying application, and, indeed, varying interpretation, of the notices of this subject which are contained in the sacred oracles, much must necessarily be left to the mutual forbearance and conceded Christian liberty of God’s people. These diversities may be either rendered more tolerable, or altogether removed, by increasing intercourse and communion, by frank and friendly comparison of views, and by the influence of that more extended public discussion, which the subject is evidently destined to receive. Without entering that discussion here, or indicating any opinion, beyond that which we have just expressed; the Committee deem it to be incumbent on them to notice some other points, on which, as it seems to them, there is occasion for present animadversion.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Thoughts on the Israel-Hamas War
…civil righteousness is not a righteousness that will justify those that possess it. It is righteous only by sinful human standards, not by that perfect standard which God requires (Matt. 5:48; Jas. 2:10). The righteousness by which he justifies comes only through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26, 28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9), a thing which many Israelis and their government deny. Let us all therefore pray for the peace of Israel, but especially for that spiritual peace with God which she currently lacks (Rom. 5:1; comp. Isa. 32:17). For her salvation will not consist in earthly prosperity or triumph in this or any other war, but in her reconciliation to the God who created her and revealed himself in her land as Jesus of Nazareth.
War is not a matter of morality. Morality matters in war, as in business and politics and every other endeavor, but war is not itself a question of right and wrong. To be in the right is not enough to commend fighting a war. There are many other factors that must be considered, such as the probability of winning, the desired outcome, and whether the necessary sacrifices will be worth it all.
War is, in fact, a question of politics, economics, and prudence. By economics I do not mean anything to do with jobs, commerce, or any of the other things politicians mean when they talk about economic matters. Economics in its proper (as opposed to its popular/political) definition is the study of the use of scarce resources that have alternative uses (to paraphrase Lionel Robbins’ definition). Few things make the scarcity of resources felt more acutely than war: there are only so many troops and so much money and materiel to use in waging war, and it tends to consume them in enormous amounts with frightful rapidity. A nation can be morally superior to its rival, but that will not avail it if its military and economy are insufficient to overcome the unrighteous enemy in war. This economic consideration received the explicit mention of our Lord (Lk. 14:31-32).
And so also with the question of politics. What is militarily feasible is not always politically feasible or advisable. In the Afghan War it would have been militarily feasible for us to have invaded the border regions of Pakistan where the Taliban had sheltered with the local tribes. But it would not have been politically advisable, for it would have brought about a breach with Pakistan, further radicalized many people there against us, and deprived us of that necessary (if unsteady and partial) support which we received from her.
And where something is not economically or politically feasible it is not prudent to go ahead with it, even in those cases where one has been wronged or is unquestionably right in a dispute. It is this which many pundits have forgotten in the fortnight since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. Yes, this is about as much a clear-cut matter of good versus evil as can be imagined in this world. Hamas is in the foremost ranks of depravity, as its actions show, and Israel is, by contrast, one of the most honorable and humane belligerents in history.
But that is largely beside the point. Hamas was wrong to attack Israel as it did, and while Israel has the right to defend itself, including by a counteroffensive into Gaza to destroy Hamas’s warfighting and civilian-murdering capabilities (i.e., its very existence), that says nothing about whether it is economically or politically feasible to do so. It takes but little reflection to see that Israel is in a difficult position. If it invades and destroys Hamas but then withdraws it is only a matter of time before a new Hamas arises. Gaza is essentially a giant refugee camp with squalid conditions that seem to breed an anti-Israel culture that will breed a new Hamas even if the current one is eradicated. Such an incursion is perhaps prudent in the short term, but it doesn’t provide a long-term solution – and this is now the third time Israel has invaded Gaza since it ended its previous occupation in 2005.
Alternatively, Israel could conquer Gaza and expel the inhabitants, except that it is not clear where they would go. The Arab nations refuse to take any refugees, and if any appreciable number made it to the West Bank that would almost certainly throw it into the hands of Hamas and be worse for Israel’s security, Gaza being much smaller and easier to guard than the West Bank. Israel could try to force another nation to take them by force, but that would entail another major regional war, probably undo all the diplomacy of the last 40 plus years, appreciably unsettle the global economy, and put the US in a difficult position politically and diplomatically.
Or Israel could once again occupy Gaza, as it did from 1967 to 2005, though that would entail all the difficulties of a military occupation. And given the security troubles it has just experienced in its own country, it seems reasonable to think they wouldn’t be easier in a place with a hostile culture. Lastly, Israel could forego an invasion, though that would embolden Hamas, earn them more recruits, and leave their offensive capabilities largely intact.
In short, Israel is in a difficult spot, and it is not clear how she should act. She is in this spot, not because of any lack of courage or martial prowess, but because of the current political environment; and that means that her being right has nothing to do with the question of what is prudent for her to do right now. One can say she should conquer Gaza, or occupy it, or eliminate Hamas without permanent annexation or occupation. Those are questions of military policy that have nothing to do with our faith; and they are ones about which many commentators are not fit to offer their opinions.
The only thing our faith has to say about the matter is that all people need personal forgiveness and that there is no such thing as a national righteousness (in war or otherwise) that saves anyone’s soul, as well as that the actual outworking of God’s providence has demonstrated the truth of my claims above about the nature of war and civil righteousness. Judah, even in the tenure of her righteous kings, was dwarfed by Israel, which went astray from the first. United Israel, even at its height under David and Solomon, was an insignificant backwater compared to many of her neighbors (Amos 7:5), and especially so in comparison to the wicked pagan empires by which she was conquered in succession: Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Macedon, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, and Rome.
If civil righteousness meant earthly prowess and military success, we would not expect these things to be so; and granting that foreign oppression and defeat were punishments for infidelity to the Lord (Deut. 28:25, 31-34), there is still the fact that Israel was sometimes more righteous than its defeaters (Habakkuk’s complaint, 1:12-17), and that civil righteousness did not guarantee Israel’s military success. When David took a census (perhaps with a view toward territorial expansion, 2 Sam. 22:45-48), God regarded it as sin and punished Israel (2 Sam. 24). We might think that God would wish for the only civilly righteous nation on Earth to be as large as possible,[1] and yet we see in that episode that this was not God’s intention. In the times of the old covenant too God’s kingdom was spiritual and not synonymous with the Jewish nation, nor did its interests preclude other nations excelling Israel or ruling her.
In his providence both Israel and other nations had their places, and the development of his kingdom and the revelation of his Messiah did not require – and indeed, may have been hindered by – Israel experiencing imperial status and military success. It is conceivable that, even if Israel had been faithful to her covenant with God, she would still have been a small nation of little earthly significance. The greater her temporal glory, the harder it would have been for Israel to realize that God’s kingdom did not lie in such things, was not limited to her but was a spiritual gift for his elect among all peoples.
And so it is in our day as well. Civil righteousness is always imperfect, incomplete, and prone to rapid disappearance when circumstances change. It is not so essential to a nation’s legitimacy as to cause it to cease to be a nation where it is lost or to preclude a nation that lacks it from attaining earthly prominence or defeating a comparatively more righteous nation. Great empires are seldom morally commendable, but that has not kept God from using them for his purposes (Ex. 9:16; 14:17; Prov. 16:4).
The most important thing, however, is that civil righteousness does nothing to ensure the personal salvation of a nation’s citizens. Indeed, it may prove the snare that blinds them to their need for personal forgiveness or makes them imagine that the victims of cruelty and defeat proved thereby that they suffered their fate as divine punishment. Consider this episode from Jesus’ First Advent:
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:1-3).
The immediate meaning of this is that suffering says nothing of the moral state of its victims, and that all people will perish unless they personally repent their sin. Its practical implication is of great importance as well, however, and that is that Christ’s primary concern is not with the justice of temporal affairs, but with the personal, eternal fate of individuals. Pilate’s act here bore the same character as Hamas’ recent actions: it was an act of bloodlustful murder by a foreign oppressor that included the blasphemous desecration of the victims’ bodies. And yet Jesus did not say that this called for any earthly retribution, much less commend his hearers to rebel against Rome on its account. Rather, he used it as an occasion to warn them to turn their attention to matters of eternal consequence that lay within their personal power and responsibility.
And so it should be in our case as well. How Israel responds to Hamas’ recent outrage is a military and political question that is beyond our immediate influence as citizens of a nation several thousand miles away. Justice and prudence may commend that we personally intervene on Israel’s behalf (e.g., by donating medical supplies) or urge our government to do so in a responsible way – indeed, I think they do commend such things – but the most important thing, more important by far than what will transpire in the coming days of the present war, is that we remember that the wars and kingdoms of this world will soon pass away, whereas the souls of those that are involved will endure forever. Looking after the soul is the key thing, and it is just there that Israel, for all her civil righteousness, greatly needs the Lord’s mercy.
For at the last, civil righteousness is not a righteousness that will justify those that possess it. It is righteous only by sinful human standards, not by that perfect standard which God requires (Matt. 5:48; Jas. 2:10). The righteousness by which he justifies comes only through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26, 28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9), a thing which many Israelis and their government deny. Let us all therefore pray for the peace of Israel, but especially for that spiritual peace with God which she currently lacks (Rom. 5:1; comp. Isa. 32:17). For her salvation will not consist in earthly prosperity or triumph in this or any other war, but in her reconciliation to the God who created her and revealed himself in her land as Jesus of Nazareth.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation.
[1] 2 Sam. 24:1 says that David’s census arose, ultimately, because God was angry with Israel, which seems to contradict my characterization of it as the only civilly righteous nation on earth, as God’s anger would have been provoked by Israelite sin. But as I show elsewhere, civil righteousness is always conceived as such from a human standpoint and does not equal righteousness in the sight of God, nor fully accord with his providential will concerning the kingdom of God. From a human standpoint, Israel in David’s day would be considered just, but obviously she did not fully please God.
Related Posts:
