As part of an essay on the attempt by the U. S. Postal Service to compel a man to violate his religious convictions by forcing him to work on the Christian Sabbath, I offered an alternative to a variety of popular but mistaken ways that some Christians have come to think about Christ and culture and church-state relations.1 The most visible of these errors at the moment is called Christian Nationalism. I have addressed it at length in this space, so I will not address it here except to say that nationalism is one thing and Christianity is another.2 Two other related movements are theonomy and Christian Reconstruction, to which I have also responded at length in this space.3 Theonomy, in the only sense in which it is controversial, is a theory that was repudiated in the Reformation and which holds that the Mosaic judicial laws are still in force and ought to be enforced by the state—”in exhaustive detail” as one modern writer put it. Christian Reconstruction is the theory that the West (by which they typically mean the USA) is going to collapse, and that out of that collapse will rise, phoenix-like, a reconstructed Christian society. This society will be part of a coming Christian golden age before the return of Christ. Christian Reconstruction is entirely dependent upon theonomy and a postmillennial eschatology, to which I have already responded by recording the critique of postmillennialism by a number of leading amillennialists.4 I have also explained and defended amillennialism.5 Christendom is an umbrella term that refers to the period of history from AD 381, when Theododius I imposed Christianity as the state-religion of the Roman empire, to the late eighteenth century, when Christendom was, in principle, repudiated by the American founders.
A few readers and listeners have contacted me recently to ask for an essay devoted to what I called POPLL (pronounced pop-ell). It is an acronym that stands for:
- Pray
- Organize
- Persuade
- Legislate
- Litigate
The Reformed have a known affinity for five points (or, more accurately, for replying to five points), so we might call these the five points of citizenship. Any American citizen, including Christians, can and may exercise these freedoms, and more of us should.6 I have sketched a case for Christian social involvement here.7 Some of these things are easier to do than others, but each of them is a challenge. This list is aimed at helping Christians begin to learn how to be an active citizen.
Pray
We Christians can and should pray for the magistrate (i.e., local, state, and federal governments) and for society generally as we are commanded to do, “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim 2:2 ESV). In this way, we fulfill the apostle Peter’s injunction to “be submissive to every human creation on account of the Lord whether the King as supreme or governors sent by him that they might punish evildoers.” (1 Pet 2:13–14a).8 After all, there is no civil “authority except from God, and those determined by God to be” (Rom 13:1). The civil magistrate is God’s deacon (διάκονός; Rom 13:4). He is God’s avenger “upon the one practicing evil” (Rom 13:4). We prayerfully subject ourselves to him “for the sake of conscience.” It is part of paying “respect” to him (Rom 13:7).
For what do we pray? We pray that the magistrate might fulfill his duty, that he might seek justice and protect the defenseless. This is the most basic function of government. Through the government we do what we, as a society, have agreed together not to do for ourselves.9 This is why, despite the many films that glorify it, we do not seek vengeance. It belongs to the Lord and he exercises it, in this life, to the degree he wills, through civil government.
Magistrates face terrible temptations to do the opposite of what they are called to do, to abuse their authority and power.10 Our news is full of accounts of self-seeking politicians, judges, and bureaucrats. When the apostles Paul and Peter wrote what they did to Timothy, the churches of Asia Minor, and to the church in Rome, the Roman government and the various regional governments were every bit as corrupt as our governments are today.
The same two apostles who wrote that we should pray for and submit to the magistrate lost their lives unjustly to those very governments for which they instructed the churches then (and now) to pray. They were not fools. They knew how wicked the Roman government could be, but they also knew that God is good and more powerful than all human governments.
We can see that God is sovereign over all governors and governments. God’s Word tells us that Yahweh “hardened” Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 14:8). Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of Yahweh; he turns it wherever he will” (ESV). The God who is sovereign over all things hears and answers prayer: “Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matt 7:9–11 ESV).
For What Should We Pray?
It seems obvious that we ought to pray for the doctrinal and moral Reformation of the visible, institutional church, which is the principal manifestation of God’s kingdom on the earth. The gospel of both salvation and justification freely given to helpless sinners by divine favor alone, through faith alone is hardly known among most Christians in our age. The public and private scandals that stain the church are scandalous even to the pagans around us. The gospel is the chief part of our witness, but the sanctification of the church is one of the greater testimonies that we can give to the watching world. Remember that the early Christian church was a tiny, powerless, misunderstood, and sometimes persecuted minority amidst a sea of pagans. There were instances when apostles, and later pastors were able to give explicit witness to the resurrection of Christ, sometimes (particularly in the AD 200s) by giving their lives for the gospel. But most of the time, the witness the church gave was by the way they lived. Consider how Paul instructed the Thessalonian congregation, which was fascinated with eschatology and worried that they had missed Christ’s return.
But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one (1 Thess 4:10b–12 ESV).
Paul never instructed any Christian or congregation to try to transform the society in which they lived. Whether writing to Christians in Asia Minor or to the Thessalonians in Macedonia. He did, however, repeatedly instruct them to live quietly, to mind their own business, to work with their hands so as not to be a burden on anyone. Notice the clause: “so that you may walk properly before outsiders.” Paul was deeply conscious that the pagans would see us before they would hear us. We might bear that in mind in our post-Christian setting.
We ought to pray that the magistrate will rule according to God’s moral law, revealed in nature (Rom 1:20, 26–27; 2:14–16) and written on the human conscience, and that they will allow the Christian church to live peacefully and quietly, and to worship the Lord according to the way he has revealed in his Word. We ought to pray that the Holy Spirit will work powerfully through the preaching of the law to convict all the elect of the greatness of their sin and misery and through the preaching of the gospel to bring all his elect to new life and true faith (Rom 10:13–17).
We should pray that our fellow citizens will listen to their consciences and recognize the humanity of infants in the womb and extend to them the protections that belong to them by nature. After all, do not all Americans confess, as a matter of civil life, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?11 The logic is clear. All humans have a right to life; infants are human; therefore, infants have a right to life endowed by their Creator. All of us know this in our conscience, but in our corrupt and narcissistic age, many have hardened their hearts and seared their consciences to deny what they know to be true in order to justify their choices.
We should pray that the Lord will turn back the madness that seems to be enveloping our schools and culture, which confuses gender for biological sex, which says that males can become females, and which has done so much damage to so many young people. We should pray that American legislators would recognize, as British and European governments have done, their role in limiting the damage done by an ideology at war with nature, nature’s God, and the humanity of young people.
We should pray that the magistrate would act decisively to stem the flow of human trafficking, the chattel slavery of our age.
We should pray that magistrates everywhere will seek to protect free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
We should pray that the Lord would enable Christians to give a good witness to the faith to their family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers, and that the Lord would use the preaching of the gospel and the witness of Christians to lead many to Christ. After all, the fundamental crisis in this nation is not economic or political. It is spiritual. Millions of hearts are empty and seeking to fill that void with sex, transgenderism, and drugs. They need to be changed and only the sovereign Holy Spirit, “the Lord and Giver of life” can give open ears, soft hearts, and new life.12
God is sovereign, merciful, and gracious. He has his people now and those he has yet to bring to new life and true faith to the glory of his name and the upbuilding of the church. We should live and pray expectantly that God will hear our prayers, renew his church, restrain evil in his common grace, and bring all his elect to new life and true faith.
Next time: What does it mean for Christians to organize?
Notes
- See R. Scott Clark, “SCOTUS: Employers May Not Prohibit Sabbath Observance, But Do American Christians Care?”
- See “Resources On Christian Nationalism.”
- See “Resources On Theonomy And Reconstructionism.”
- See R. Scott Clark, “Heidelminicast Series: Contra Postmillennialism.”
- See R. Scott Clark, “Heidelcast Series: As It Was In The Days Of Noah.”
- I did not describe this as “Christian citizenship” because 4 of the 5 points are common to believers and unbelievers.
- See R. Scott Clark, “Christian, Get Involved.”
- All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.
- This does not mean, however, that individuals and families have no right to self-defense. They certainly do. On that see R. Scott Clark, “On Self Defense.”
- Authority is the right to use power, which is the potential or ability to execute a policy and to enforce law with coercion.
- “Men,” in this context, is used generically to refer to all humans.
- This expression comes from the Nicene Creed as revised in AD 381 at the Council of Constantinople.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
You can find this whole series here.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Pastors, The Graham Rule, And Wisdom
- How It Happens And Why Church Government Matters
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Dr. Clark,
Thank you for the list of specifics on what to pray for regarding our government. I pray every Sunday from the pulpit for our government but tend to be too generic. Your list will give me more grist for the pulpit prayer mill. Much appreciated
Pastor David, Covenant URC, Fresno
Tis interesting indeed! Very! Thanks, Kelly!✝️📖
Forgot to say only Article 11 of the treaty matters today.
You this in mind for “to the late eighteenth century, when Christendom was, in principle, repudiated by the American founders?” See “Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796,” available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp Source: Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, edited by Hunter Miller, Volume 2, Documents 1 40: 1776 [to] 1818; Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931. © 2008 Lillian Goldman Law Library; 127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511.
This is interesting (it is—I had forgotten about it) but I don’t think we need a treaty to make the case. We can make it from our normative national documents.
The Tripoli treaty is, for better or worse, often mentioned by various atheists and secularists who try to make an argument that it was widely believed in the early 1800s that America was not a Christian country.
There are several problems with that use of the treaty.
First and perhaps most importantly, it **IS** true that the United States had no national established church. For the Senate to confirm that treaty, that has to be the sense that at least some of the Senators meant those words.
Second, we need to remember that the United States of that era was a small and weak country that was being preyed upon by Muslim pirate states in North Africa. That’s not an insult; that’s why we have the “shores of Tripoli” line in the Marine Corps song, noting that the United States went to war against the Barbary Pirates to force them to stop attacking American ships and capturing American sailors and merchant crews. This treaty was a FAILED attempt to stop the piracy. It didn’t work, we had to go to war to stop the pirates, and if anything, this treaty shows that compromise doesn’t work. Kowtowing or paying tribute to bullies leads only to more bullying. Nothing but force will stop people who do such things and that is why our Marine Corps has the reputation it does — stopping pirates on the other side of the ocean who European powers had bribed or bought off for centuries.
Third, there are numerous official statements from later eras in the 1800s, including from the US Supreme Court, that state that America was a Christian nation. Now we can certainly argue — and I think it’s a good argument — that by the later 1800s, the term “Christian nation” had very little doctrinal content beyond a “civil religion” approach. But the Treaty of Tripoli, if it ever had any meaning, simply meant that America had no established national church and was rendered irrelevant by the continued predations of the Barbary Pirates and their breaking of the treaty terms.
I re-read my post and realized that for people who don’t know some details of American history, may not be obvious why I said that “First and perhaps most importantly, it **IS** true that the United States had no national established church. For the Senate to confirm that treaty, that has to be the sense that at least some of the Senators meant those words.”
When the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified, one state — and it wasn’t some backwater somewhere, but rather a major center of American shipping which was at risk due to the predations of the Barbary Pirates — still had an established church. That was Massachusetts, and while the other two states whose state-established churches survived the colonial eras were embroiled in disestablishment controversies by the late 1700s, Massachusetts retained its established church for a generation after the Treaty of Tripoli.
Article 11, in the source cited by Kelly Haggar, reads as follows: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Yes, it could be said that the **FEDERAL** “government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
That was not true of Massachusetts at the time of the treaty, and within recent memory had not been true of a number of other states during their pre-independence period, and even post-independence for a few of the New England states other than Massachusetts.
I would argue that even Article 11 of the treaty no longer applies because it is no longer true that the United States “never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation.”
Like it or not, the Islamic jihadists say we have done so by our actions in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and people all over the Muslim world believe, based on their Koranic views of warfare, that the United States have become a legitimate target for warfare. We may disagree, and I do. But we’ve entered open warfare in the Middle East directly since the First Gulf War of the early 1990s, and indirectly for decades before that, and I don’t see how any fair reading of Article 11 can say have never engaged in warfare against Muslim nations. We’ve done so, and I believe we were right in doing so, but there are consequences to that action under Islamic law that I think both President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush fully understood.
The First Gulf War was deliberately a coalition of allies intended to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which were Muslim nations, and could be justified by Muslim scholars. The government of Iraq was secular enough, and Saddam Hussein was sufficiently in violation of Islamic principles, that few in the strictly observant Muslim world were willing to defend him.
The situation in Afghanistan was a clearcut case of the United States attacking a strictly observant Muslim nation that harbored an even more radical group that attacked a foreign non-Muslim nation, i.e., us. There are actually good parallels with the wars against the Barbary Pirates. Were we justified to do so? Yes, by Augustinian principles of Christian just war and by the Western just war tradition. But for observant Muslims, the “fig leaf” of Americans “defending Saudi Arabia against a secularized Iraqi state” could no longer be maintained after 9/11.
The American attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq had to be defended by Muslim countries based on their version of “realpolitik,” not Islamic legal theory, and that change is responsible for much of the current uproar in the Middle East.
Osama bin Laden accomplished at least some of what he set out to do, namely, forcing the United States to take actions which could no longer be defended with a straight face by the Saudi Arabian religious leadership, and would force the rulers of Saudi Arabia, and other conservative Muslims, to defend their support for America on other grounds than religious theory.
Dr. Clark will likely read this and say, “This is why we don’t want Christian Nationalism in America. We see what it does in Muslim countries and what it used to do in Christian countries.”
Fair enough.
But we have no choice but to deal with the Middle East as long as we need oil, and dealing with the Middle East means dealing with Islam and its view of what is and is not a just war according to their religious principles.