The Independence of Religion
The early Christian movement set a course that made it independent from Rome. Looking back now, it seems so obvious. Of course the church was independent! It had to be. Christianity was a new and very different religion, and Rome knew it. If there was ever an example of oil and water, this is it. Roman religion was one thing; Christianity quite another.
But what seems obvious now was far from obvious back then. Christians had every reason to accommodate to Rome. It would have spared them a great deal of trouble and difficulty, like suffering persecution, and it would have made it far easier to grow the church, keeping entry easy and standards low. It would have even given them influence and power, or so it might have seemed at the time. Converts could have remained good Romans as well as good Christians.
We know now, of course, that such accommodation would have altered Christianity beyond recognition. It is unlikely Christianity would have even survived. Rome would have simply swallowed it up, which the powers of this world tend to do if a religious group allows it.
But Christians resisted Roman domination and fiercely maintained their independence. And for one reason. They called Jesus Lord, which meant Caesar, Rome, and Empire were not—and could not be—Lord. Only Jesus. In their minds Jesus had no rivals.
Fast forward some 2,000 years.
Accommodation to culture is the great temptation Christians face in America today, especially accommodation to president, party, and politics. Why the attraction? Because it promises influence and power. We convince ourselves of the good we could accomplish. Defend our rights! Protect America from threats, both foreign and domestic! Uphold truth! Impose biblical morality! Do the work of the kingdom!
It sounds like the devil’s temptation in the wilderness. As you might recall, Jesus said a very firm ‘NO!’
Because the devil always wins when we play by the devil’s rules. The state always wins when we play by the state’s rules. And leaders—presidents, prime ministers, monarchs, dictators—always win when we play by their rules. They chew the church up and spit it out.
In a previous post I introduced you to the writing of Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat who traveled to America in the 1830s to discover why democracy in America succeeded, much to the surprise of Europeans. What did he learn?
First, he discovered afresh why the arrangement in France did not work. In France the Catholic church was inseparable from the monarchy. When leaders of the revolution overthrew the monarchy, they rejected Catholicism, too, because the two seemed indistinguishable. “Unbelievers in Europe attack Christians more as political than as religious enemies; they hate the faith as the opinion of a party much more than as a mistaken belief, and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of God than because they are the friends of authority. European Christianity has allowed itself to be intimately united with the powers of this world. Now that these powers are falling, it is as if it were buried under the ruins.” (!!!)
Second, he appreciated the independence of the American church. Christians cut their own path and kept safe distance from the state. The influence of Christianity was much greater in America than in Europe because it shaped the moral and spiritual life of the nation on its own terms, using persuasion, not coercion. It worked from bottom up, not top down. “Christianity reigns without obstacles, by universal consent; consequently, as I have said elsewhere, everything in the moral field is certain and fixed, although the world of politics seems given over to argument and experiment.”
The church in America didn’t focus exclusively on temporal concerns, which proved to be the secret of its success. Its fortunes did not rise or fall with the popularity of a candidate or party or popular cause. “But when a religion chooses to rely on the interests of this world, it becomes almost as fragile as all earthly powers. . . . Hence any alliance with any political power whatsoever is bound to be burdensome for religion. It does not need their support in order to live, and in serving them it may die.”
Here is the irony: de Tocqueville concluded that the church was the “first political institution” in America because its concerns transcended politics. It was interested in other—and higher—matters. It reached people and changed their lives.
The church in America is failing because it has aligned itself too closely with political leader and party. This applies equally to both parties. Such alignment might achieve short term gains but it will lead to long term losses, for the very reason de Tocqueville cited almost 200 years ago. Associating its fortunes too closely with leader and party, its influence and relevance might rise for a season but in the end will surely fall. In the meantime, it will fail to fulfill what Jesus has commanded Christians to do, which is to make disciples. That is no small task. If the church obeys this radical command, its influence will only grow, without the need for compromise.
Someday we will look back on this day with profound regret. We should have known better, we will say to ourselves. We bowed the knee to president and party to take a shortcut to influence. We believed power was within our grasp. But the cost proved to be too high. It turned out to be a bargain with the devil.
France is our cautionary tale. We would be wise to pay attention, lest we, too, become still another cautionary tale.