Chapter 30 of Greg Bahnsen’s book “By This Standard” supplied this arguement.

1. pray
2. give solutions in words
3. give solutions through example
4. offer clear opinions in public forums

I agree. I pray that God would pierce the hearts of men that they would bow to God’s standard and repent of their sin (Eph 6:18). My position is that the Church (all believers) needs articulate moral absolutes to bring society out of the fog of moral relativism (Eph. 6:19). I also hold that the Church (all believers) must lead by example through consistent obedience to God’s Word —both OT and NT (Eph. 5:1). I agree that the Church should offer clear solutions from the Bible (Ps. 19:8). It is important to present reasonable sounding arguments, but with the understanding that unbelievers are “darkened in their understanding” and walk in “futility” (Is. 28:10-13; Eph. 4:17-18).

God abhors compromising His standard of holiness to reach peace with those who are God haters (the unrepentant) (Is. 30:1).

A law against abortion will not save the unbeliever, but it pleases God by prohibiting government-sanctioned destruction of His image.

I know the abortion example is over used. I also agree that most people know what Christians are against but not what Christians support. But I think there are always extremes, and completely removing a Christian presents from civil government is, in my opinion, an extreme. Such an action would leave a whole sphere void of God’s representatives.

Further, in my experience (which probably does not carry must authority), there isn’t ever real common ground. I am NOT advocating salvation through outward obedience to the law or that God’s law should be forced upon society to “bring the Kingdom.” Secondly, it is only through prayer and the moving of God’s Spirit that anyone obeys God. I myself, or any group of people, cannot make people want to glorify God by adopting His holy sense of justice in all aspect of their lives. I am only arguing that where the God’s Kingdom goes, His holy standard of justice goes as well.

In response, one may then say that if my assertion were true, then non-believers would never elect a Christian or select to live under God’s standard of right and wrong.

I would respond by recognizing that non-believers will reject God’s law until they have an incentive to accept it. For example, the Bible states that if a nation follows God’s law, that nation will prosper (Deut. 29:9). Therefore, it is not because unbelievers necessary agree with Christians on issues of morality, it is because they want the same prosperity (laws against sexual immorality to prevent AIDS). Or they want unwavering guidance in time of utter moral confusion. William Wilberforce’s arguments against slavery appealed to unbelievers because almost no one wants to be a slave! But slavery is allowed in society not because lawmakers or society ever believe slavery is moral, but because they love money more than morality. My point is this: believers must have a morality before they can sway unbelievers to accept that morality. If not the 10 commandments, then what?

In your first question, you set up what my argumentation teacher calls a “straw man” argument. Why? Because it is easy to show there is no “fixed” body of laws if you exclude the 10 commandments and the specific application examples (case law). Secondly, question one also “begs the question” by presupposing that God’s law is no longer binding. You cannot choose to set aside Mosaic Law for the sake of argument because that is the exact the point of disagreement. (at least in my mind…)

On that point, I still am not convinced that anyone can separate “God’s law” from “Christ’s law.” You give example of Paul referring to the Law of Moses as God’s law when he says he is not under law (1 Cor. 9:20-21), which makes a distinction between ceremonial Mosaic law and Christ’s law. I completely agree! Paul is referring to the Old Testament ceremonial regulations, which as a Pharisee he touted as the key to salvation. Yes, Paul is not under ceremonial law, as that part of the law has been fulfilled by Christ’s death. On the other hand, the 10 commandments are affirmed by Jesus in the New Testament; thus God’s law given through Moses is Christ’s law (Mt. 5:17-20). Paul says “the law is good, if one uses it lawfully.” (1 Tim. 1:8-11). How do we know the lawless from the lawful? Use of God’s law as a measuring stick.

Please see Matthew chapter 5 where Jesus repeatly corrects the Pharisees’ distortion of God’s law. The Pharisees thought of their law as God’s law, but they twisted it and misapplied it. Jesus does not say the law doesn’t apply, he says “whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19) and corrects the legalistic additions to His Father’s law. Jesus also never makes a distinction between His Father’s law and His law. Jesus lived to do his father’s will (Jn. 5:19).

I would want to make it clear that I am certainly not suggesting that prayer is the only way we influence politics and legislation. I just think that we need to keep in focus the essentially spiritual nature of the Kingdom, and be careful that we don’t get drawn into using the weapons of this world.

I am passionately concerned that Christians get involved in the political world in all kinds of ways.

And the interesting thing about Wilberforce is that he was campaigning on an issue on which he would have had much common ground with others (though most would have been at least nominally Christian in that age) and there were in fact ‘Christians,’ both in US and Britain, who were arguing for slavery on supposedly Christian grounds! I would happily align myself with an atheist or a Hindu campaigning on something I passionatley believed in, and not with a ‘Christian’ with whom I strongly disagreed.

Trevor

Anyway, for me when we talk about the Kingdom of God pervading and infiltrating society at large, it always has to be through hearts and minds won to the message of the Kingdom and ultimately to King Jesus.

Wilberforce stood and campaigned for years to see slavery abolished. Evantually, through his speeches, persistance and prayer - he won over the hearts and minds of a nation, and at that time, the empire which was nearly half of the world in the early 1800’s. The law was finally brought to the statute book after he died but the ultimate argument of justice and freedom for slaves was won.

Sometimes, a law in a nation, and the debate around that issue can provide the forum and framework for the message of the Kingom to come. e.g The present Lord Joffe Bill in the Lords and the debate surrounding that Bill in relation to life, care and compassion. I think this is an excellent opportunity for christians to prophetically proclaim the message of the Kingdom.

I agree though that the Kingdom of God was never destined to come simply through legislation but through infiltration of society by holy spirit filled men and women in every sector and part of society, including politics.

(1) William Wilberforce was able to progress against slavery specifically because he was directly involved in shaping law/policy and was active and well connected in politics. Even some missional parachurch organisations such as the British and Foreign Bible Society were founded through his political influence.

(2) In cotnrast, Wesley and Whitfield changed society through their preaching and resulting revival. The grass-roots change in large numbers of the population caused through their converstion reduced lawlessness, crime as well as increasing industry and the economy. Some commentators say this broad shift away from general malaise and discontent to increasing prosperity also saved Britain from bloody revolution as was experienced in France.

For me these two scenarios point toward the need for perhaps not reducing this to a simplistic position where either ‘prayer’ or ‘politics’ becomes our choice of response.