Scribblative Jousting

Doug Jones has a very provocative post on political authority over at Scribblative Agincourting. He argues that, teleologically, the Church will supplant the State’s earthly authority:

The Church [will] replace the State in long-term redemptive history. In fact, that seems to be the major trajectory of the gospel, to create a different community, a distinctive city on a hill, unlike the gentiles. In terms of goals, and ideals (not OT immaturity), Scripture appears often to present Church and State as competing, rather than complementary institutions, with different methods, means, and ends. The case for this is large and stands out prominently in places like the book of Revelation, among others.

I think that Mr. Jones’ reimagination of political authority rings fairly true. His post makes a string of exegetical arguments for the role of the Church as judge of heaven and earth (Matt. 16:19) which I find very appealing (I’ve written a little piece which interacts with this issue).

There are two related points, though, which I think merit some interaction.

First, I wonder whether it’s really accurate to say that the State, by necessity, must have different qualitative ends from the Church. In other words, is it possible for the State to be humbled before Christ (Ps. 2), and therefore offer (in its own limited way) its glory to Christ? Martin Bucer made the argument that both the king and the Church are both servants of God (Rom. 13:4). Both aim to serve Christ, their Master:

There is a similarity between the kingdoms of the world and of Christ, in that, as do the kings of the world, so also Christ our heavenly King wants his subjects to be received into and sealed for his Kingdom, to be gathered into his congregation, to come together in his name, and to be ruled by his ministries by means of certain covenants and sacraments of an external nature. [*]

The difference between the two deacons, then, is not best measured in terms of quality, but efficacy. The Church, Bucer argues, has something the State does not: the indwelling of the Spirit. Therefore, both the State and the Church are kingdoms (and might at times work in tandem for the cause of Christ), but only the Church has the ability to minister in the Spirit to its “citizens,” and therefore to work efficaciously for their good.

This idea, of course, offers a heaping (distasteful?) dose of eschatological tension. Too many chefs in the kitchen, as they say. But isn’t that the essence of the already/not-yet kingdom we inhabit?

Of course, the roles which God’s two deacons fulfill need a major reimagination. That’s where the second point comes in. This needs some more thought, imho. But Oliver O’Donovan’s recent work, The Ways of Judgment, wrestles with the paradox into which Christ places the Church: His simultaneous commands to “judge not” and to exercise authority over heaven and earth. The starting place for discussion of political authority, O’Donovan suggests, should begin with the acknowledgment of this tension. This tension, in fact, might be just the paradigm we’ve been searching for.