Latest / Pastor John Piper's answers / Political Flag-Waving Isn’t Enough
Transcript
- Welcome back to the podcast. We regularly take up questions on things like church state separation, on political activism, on Christians and patriotism, on US flags and the sanctuary, things like that. Here's another question on this theme from a listener named Matthew in Cincinnati. Pastor John, Hello to you. Years back, you posted a tweet online that I printed out, kept and would like you to expand on. Now. You posted the following on April seventeenth to twenty twenty one, starting with Mark, chapter six, verse eighteen. Quote for John had been saying to Herod, it is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife. Quote, very bold text of John speaking truth to power to confront Harold's adultery. Then you said this quote by all means be willing to lose your life to speak truth to power. But always keep in mind the vast difference between this and political flag waving. Can you expound on that? What marks this vast difference between speaking the truth to power and political flag waving? What factors distinguish the two in your mind? And is this mainly an unseen heart issue we must be warned about, Master John, What would you say? Let me begin by giving six descriptions of what I mean by political flagwaving that should be avoided, and then turn and try to say something constructive about speaking truth to power. So in the tweet, I said, by all means be willing to lose your life to speak truth to power. But always keep in mind the vast difference between this and political flagwaving. And here's what I mean by political flagwaving in that assertion, And keep in mind that I'm treating political flag waving here as a bad thing. Even though I know that there is a definition of political flag waving that's not a bad thing. I'm not talking about that. So to make that clear, I'm going to use the word bad to designate the political flag waving I'm talking about, and I'll describe good political flag waving in just a minute. So here's what I mean by bad political flag waving. Bad political flag waving number one means waving the flag of partisan that is, party loyalty as a final allegiance, an ultimate allegiance as bad. Number two, bad political flag waving means asserting a moral or social position without making a clear difference between standing for the position and standing for the party. That may also stand for the position, But are you standing for the position or are you standing for the party? Make the distinction. Number three bad political flagwaving means expressing an undue hope for the common good in the strategies of partisan politics. Now there are aspects of common good that can indeed come through partisan politics, yes there are, but there's also an undo, unwarranted level of hope that is to be avoided. Number four, bad political flag waving means grounding moral stands in partisan platforms rather than in a biblical worldview. Number five, bad political flag waving reflects a mistake and conviction that moral change will come to a population through political action or partisan advocacy. It won't. Number six bad political flag waving means foregrounding partisan politics in settings where they do not belong, for example, in Christian worship. Making the case for a party's political platform belongs, for example at the national convention of the party. That's where you can wave your flag properly, but not in Christian worship. So that's some of what I wanted us to avoid when I said, by all means, be willing to lose your life to speak truth to power. But always keep in mind the vast difference between this and political flag waving. Now, what about truth to power? Now? At this point, it seems to me we really need to clarify the phrase separation of church and state. Wherever you say speak truth to power, people wonder if you're trying to establish your religion as one that the government should get behind with force and with the sword. Is that what you're doing when you say speak truth to powers, try to insert your own religion as a religion that the government would use its sword to establish or defend. So we need to clarify the phrase separation of church and state. And it seems to me this phrase is surrounded by confusion today. I think it's always been surrounded by confusion, And I don't think it's anybody's fault in particular. It's just one of those American Shibbalists that is intrinsically ambiguous. So when we have a phrase like that, and there are lots of them, those who use them, like me right now, have an obligation to give some guidance says to what they mean by that phrase. Can't just sling it about as if everybody knows what you're talking about. So last June, I published an article at Desiring God called My Kingdom Is Not of this World, in which I tried to give a careful, biblically argued statement of separation of government, force and religious establishment, which I think is right at the heart of the issue. Here's the thesis. I'll just read it quote. The thesis of this essay is that Jesus Christ, the absolutely supreme Creator, sustainer and ruler of the universe, intends to accomplish his saving purposes in the world without reliance on the powers of civil government to teach, defend, or spread the Christian religion. As such, followers of Christ should not use the sword of civil government to enact and force or spread any idea or behavior as explicitly Christian that is as part of the Christian religion as such. It is precisely our supreme allegiance to the Lordship of Christ, not owing to any kind of secular neutrality. It's owing to our supreme allegiance to the Lordship of Christ that obliges us not to use the God given sword of civil government to threaten the punishment or withhold freedoms of persons who do not confess Christ as Lord. So the implication of that is this, no human government should ever use its biblical right to wield the sword to enforce a religion or to oppose a religion as such. And the reason I use the phrase as such is to distinguish that bad action a forceful establishment or forceful maintenance of religion, from the good action of creating laws that might fit the morality of a religion, but not at all be part of prescribing or proscribing a religion as such. So with that background in place, I say again, it is not only a Christian's right, but a Christian's calling to speak truth to power, and to speak truth to weakness and everybody in between. We should tell the President of the United States, and we should tell the panhandler on the street, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. If you don't believe, mister President, mister panhandler, you are under the wrath of God. Stop killing babies in the womb, Stop doing drugs on the street, do justice, love kindness, walk humbly with your God. We should say that, and a hundred other things. We should say we are the voice of Scripture when we faithfully read and speak what the Bible teaches even though the kind of obedience that pleases God is only possible in the power of the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ. Nevertheless, we call everyone believer unbeliever. We call everyone to the highest biblical standard of attitude and behavior because we call everyone to repent and trust Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit. We don't just isolate behavior and pray that presidents and panhanders would do right behavior. We want them to believe and to be full of the Holy Spirit and then act that behavior in a way that pleases God through faith. Speaking truth to power in a truly Christian way is always a call to repent and trust the forgiving grace of Jesus. Christians know that the greatest problem to be solved in every person's life, from the president of the panhandler is the problem of God's wrath against them in their unforgiven sin. And therefore the main thing that Christians speak to power is Romans three twenty five propitiation of God's wrath by the blood of Christ received through faith. So I'll say it again just like I did in the tweet. By all means, be willing to lose your life to speak truth to power and weakness, but always keep in mind the vast difference between this and political flag waving. Very good, Pastor John, thank you for revisiting that tweet. This episode is part of a large ongoing discussion on the podcast on church state separation issues, on political activism, on Christians, and patriotism, on US flags in the sanctuary, things like that. Pastor John has answered many such questions over the years, so many it's easy to forget all the ground that we've covered, and I wanted you to see that ground, which is one reason why I wrote a new book titled Ask Pastor John, seven hundred and fifty Bible answers to Life's Most Important Questions. It's a huge book. It'll probably be the longest book ever right, and it digests episodes to keep them together on various themes and on these topics of politics and patriotism. You can find my digest on pages forty seven to fifty six of that new book forty seven to fifty six of Asked Pastor John, seven hundred and fifty Bible answers to Life's most Important Questions. I hope it proves useful in helping you get around the art the book releases soon. From a Crossway, We're up next time talking about the essence of love? What is it? I'm your host, Tony Ranky. See you on Thursday.