Christians often fail to distinguish between the toleration and practice of sin. Daniel, like Joseph, had little choice but to tolerate idol worship among those he governed even while he would never personally practice it. Likewise, an authority may favor civil liberties that enable society to sin, but this is not the same thing as personally practicing or encouraging such sins.

When the Church engages in questions of governance, it does so through two distinct roles: prophetically and politically.  Distinguishing between these is essential to understand the role of the Church in society.  Conversely, failing to distinguish between the two can lead to dogmatic, self-righteous political engagement or corrupted, capitulating, spiritual engagement—both of which undermine the Church’s pursuit of the Great Commission. 

In the prophetic role, the Church communicates God’s truth to society with boldness and clarity.  The Old Testament prophets condemned and encouraged ancient Isreal’s society and leaders.  Similarly, in the New Testament, Peter, John, and Stephen all challenged Israel’s leaders.1

The prophetic role is inherently theological.  The prophets did not communicate their own “truths” but God’s truth.  Those who falsely claimed to speak for God were to be put to death.  Paul likewise did not preach a Gospel received from men, but one received from God. 

The prophetic role is inherently moral.  When God speaks, it is not opinion, preference, or suggestion.  It is a judgement, command, or truth.  Through the prophets and apostles, God provided a moral framework to navigate by, one that defined and condemned sins, beckoned repentance, and foretold salvation.  

The prophetic role is inherently uncompromising.  The Old Testament prophets persisted in communicating God’s truth no matter the cost or response.  The Apostles similarly persisted in communicating God’s truth in the face of resistance and persecution. 

The prophetic role is inherently eternal in perspective.  The prophets and apostles communicated truth that was not just relevant in the moment but for all time.  They could speak clearly and boldly no matter the present circumstances because they knew God would ultimately triumph.  Even in suffering, Paul declared, “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.”

The prophetic role is primarily (but not exclusively) directed towards God’s own people.  In the Old Testament, the prophets generally spoke to the Israelites.  Likewise, Jesus repeatedly condemned the Pharisees but rarely rebuked the Romans.  Paul similarly declared, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?”  The godly hunger and thirst for God’s truth; the ungodly, like Pilate, dismissively ask, “What is truth?” 

The prophetic role contrasts sharply with the political. In its political capacity, the Church, through individual Christians, attempts to govern society with justice and diligence.  Biblically, we see many examples of this including Joseph, Moses, David, and Daniel.  Any Christian with a measure of governing authority plays a political role, including Christians with the authority to vote and serve on juries. 

But the political role is inherently prudential, not theological.  The options facing Christian authorities are limited by societal attitudes and governing structures.  For example, the Bible condemns drunkenness, but a Christian authority today has limited options for legally restraining it, given societal attitudes.  Failure to recognize the prudential nature of politics often leads political theology astray.  The theological truth has no political relevance beyond its ability to positively shape society.  In another example, Joseph governed Egyptians who worshiped other gods but was in no position to ban the practice of paganism.  Daniel was in a similar position in Babylon.  

The political role is not inherently moral.  When Christian authorities make political choices, they are generally expressing preferences and opinions given the available options, not moral truths.  Joseph’s toleration of Egyptian idolatry was not a denial of monotheism.  Policy generally involves trade-offs that benefit some groups at the expense of others. 

Read More