The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

November 1, 2010 by Jason Hood

SAET Interviews in Politics and Theology #8: John Frame

“ . . . in a well-planted church, people should eventually be taught what Scripture says about politics (above). The first church planters of the Book of Acts did not stress politics (except for the Kingdom of God, a very political concept). But eventually, as in Rom. 13, they dealt with the political implications of the Gospel.”

John Frame is professor of philosophy and systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL).  A number of his shorter and fuller works on a wide variety of topic can be found at a website established to host his writings and those of his former colleague at Westminster Seminary, Vern Poythress.

1. For readers who are not familiar with your work, can you describe your contribution to the question of how the individual Christian and the Church relates to the State?

JF:  In my Doctrine of the Christian Life, a major work on ethics, I discuss the nature of the state and the Christian’s obligation to it in the context of the Fifth Commandment. I argue there that the state rules the family of Adam, while the church rules of the family of Christ. I believe with the Reformed tradition that the Christian should obey the civil officers unless their commands conflict with God’s, or unless the state itself has become lawless and there is the prospect of replacing it with a better authoritative rule.

2.  Richard Mouw and Carl F. H. Henry have suggested that the Church’s role is not coterminous with the responsibility possessed by individual believers.  Do you agree or disagree?

JF:  I would agree in general. The church should not tell a Christian artist what pictures to paint. But the church should exercise discipline over all its members in all aspects of their lives concerning their obedience or disobedience to God’s law.

3.  Please identify for our readers two influential thinkers or political concepts to which you often respond (perhaps one positive, one negative)?

JF:  I tend to respond positively to Kuyper and his followers (though some of these have gone on to the wrong track), negatively to followers of Anabaptism and the extreme “two kingdom” viewpoint. I value Kuyper for his view that all things are under the Lordship of Christ and that we should seek to apply God’s word to every area of life. I think that Anabaptism devalues the state, even sometimes regarding it as Satanic, contrary to Scripture. The two kingdom view tends to discourage Christians from applying biblical principles to culture and politics, drawing a distinction between church and culture that is sharper than Scripture warrants.

4. How would you summarize the political responsibilities of the average American in the pew—that is, someone with voting rights, but little political capital, and little or no economic capital for political action?

JF:  He should try to gain some knowledge of political issues, because he is part of the political process, in effect a ruler, and therefore commissioned to rule wisely. He should then vote. And he should do what he can to change government, or to encourage leaders, as he thinks appropriate.

5.  How does Romans 13 help us understand the limits placed on the church and/or the individual believer in our engagement with political matters?

JF:  Rom. 13 does not say much if anything about the church as church. It counsels “every person” (verse 1) to be subject to the ruling authorities since they are God’s ministers. He should also pay taxes (verse 7). Rom. 13 also gives us a picture of what the state should be: a terror to bad, not good conduct (3), a body that reliably punishes evil (verse 4).

6.  How do biblical books such as Deuteronomy and Proverbs help us to understand God’s perspective on politics?  Does the fact that they share political and ethical insights with other Ancient Near Eastern cultures (or that they offer critiques of those cultures and their political systems) influence your view of their relevance?

JF:  It does not matter to what extent they agree or don’t with other ANE cultures. Deut., Prov., and other books are authoritative because they are the word of God. Of course, the word of God must be applied to current situations, and these books give us examples of how to apply God’s word to a particular culture. As for politics, both of these books speak of kingship. In Deut. 17, God warns against the king trying to enrich himself and to gain more personal power through marriage or through weaponry. He is to be subject to God’s law and to serve his people. The many references to kings in Proverbs are more difficult to summarize. Perhaps the main emphasis is that the king is consequential. Although he is subject to the same ethic as everybody else, his good and evil actions have more momentous consequences for the nation than those of private citizens.

7.  Some political theologians note that Daniel simultaneously models service, critique, and a message of divine judgment.  Are all three of these to be implemented by believers?  Are they postures we should always exhibit, or are they more appropriate at some times than others?

JF:  I think that all three of these can be legitimate, but they are more appropriate at some times than at others. (1) Service is always appropriate. (2) Criticism is often needed, but constant criticism can be counterproductive. (3) As for announcing divine judgment, I believe that God does still judge evil societies, but unless we have special revelation we should hesitate to claim that a particular event of the past, present, or (anticipated) future is a divine judgment. It is difficult to predict if or when God will judge a nation before the final judgment.

8.  If a young church planter says to you, “In my social and cultural context, I need to avoid political topics.  This enables me to address the gospel without any baggage and has helped our church create a community of diverse perspectives centered on Christ and his work.  But am I doing the right thing?  Should I be bolder?”  How would you respond?  Which passages would you use as a resource for guiding his or her thinking?

JF:  The emphasis one places on different biblical themes can legitimately vary from situation to situation. But in a well-planted church, people should eventually be taught what Scripture says about politics (above). The first church planters of the Book of Acts did not stress politics (except for the Kingdom of God, a very political concept). But eventually, as in Rom. 13, they dealt with the political implications of the Gospel.

9.  What is the best article or essay a young pastor could read on politics, political interpretation of Scripture, or political theology?  The best book?

JF:  Kuyper’s inaugural lecture at the Free University of Amsterdam [ed. note: Kuyper's manifesto of his influential view on Sphere Sovereignty]; Wayne Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible.

Categories: Interviews on Politics and Theology | Jason Hood | John Frame | Political Theology