Michael Haykin is one of my favorite Christian teachers and one of the most preeminent church historians in the world. Every once in while, however, we disagree with some of our favorite teachers, and a little while ago Haykin posted an article that had a useful observation, followed by what I believe are (somewhat) erroneous conclusions. His observation was that there are very few major political figures mentioned in the New Testament, and especially compared to the Old. His conclusions (in a very brief article) are that 1) there is significant discontinuity between OT and NT as to how God’s people relate to politics and 2) the NT is not really that concerned with politics but about preaching and personal transformation.

In this article, I won’t be interacting in any depth with Haykin’s writing, nor do I intend to refute it’s conclusions with in-depth research or exegesis. I simply want to suggest several strands of political themes which tend to be overlooked by those who focus on the Christian’s inner life almost exclusively (sometimes called pietism, at term which Haykin himself uses).

1. Jesus tangled with political leaders constantly. The scribes and the Pharisees were not just religious leaders. They exercised a significant amount of practical, political power within Judea. This is clear from the accounts of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion wherein it seemed that the Sanhedrin and the High Priest had great measures of judicial and punitive powers, albeit falling short of the ability to execute criminals. When you realize this, passages like Matthew 23 take on new shades of meaning–not only are these leaders spiritual hypocrites (Mat 23:23-28), but they are responsible for the shedding of righteous blood (Mat 23:29-36) as judges and rulers.
2. Paul tangled with political leaders because he preached in public places in the polis (city). The book of Acts is chock-full of encounters and references to politicians and public officials: Annas, Caiaphas, John and Alexander (Acts 3), Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12), Felix (Acts 23), Festus (Acts 24), Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25-26), Caesar (Acts 27), Publius (Acts 28). So prevalent are political leaders in Acts, it undermines Haykin’s observation that “the NT says virtually nothing about the ‘big men’ of its milieu.” No, the Bible isn’t a political hanbook, but it assumes that where the gospel is preached in the city (polis, from where we get the word politics), the rulers are interested and/or threatened. This leads us to the third observation.
3. The gospel message is inherently political. “Jesus Christ is Lord” is a political statement. It is why Christians were martyred under many Roman emperors. Political powers tend towards absolutism, rather than recognizing the limited sphere of authority granted them by God. Christians, on the other hand, recognize the supreme lordship of Christ, and this is inherently political because it informs (with conviction of sin) how we live our lives outwardly and openly. In fact, I would argue that the only culture in which the Christian is capable of pretending that the gospel isn’t political is one that is operating on the capital or fumes of a Christianization that took place further back. And a non-political gospel will soon squander that inheritance.
4. The Book of Revelation is very political. Revelation is unique in its genre, generally recognized as apocalyptic, drawing richly from the symbolism of Old Testament books like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah and others. Revelation begins by saying that the letter is from Jesus Christ who is, among other things, “the ruler of kings on earth” (Rev 1:5). This is a crucial message at the beginning of this book because the primarily means of Christ’s rule isn’t, for the time being, political. Rather, the world’s rightfu ruler is being patient with the lost and raising up his church which often takes place through persecution and suffering, often at the hands of unrighteous rulers. But the entire book has much to say about politics and indeed about the rulers and kings of earth, albeit through symbolic references. The Beast’s seven heads are interpreted in Revelation 17:9 as seven mountains, almost certainly a reference to the seven hills of Rome. And he is a head of empire, using political power to bring all peoples under one false God and state, marking them in an evil mirror of the Lamb’s marking of the saints (Rev 13:16-18).
5. Everything is political. We tend to dichotomize politics from other areas of life. As an example, how often have you heard about a politician who supports abortion, euthanasia, LGBT, etc., being “very religious”? Somehow people think that they can have a private religion that doesn’t have any implications for the rest of society and life. The religion our Lord taught is very, very different. A transformed heart changes everything about us and radically affects everything, including the policies we support or try to remove. We ought not only to love the Lord with all our heart but our neighbour as ourselves. Can we really say we love our neighbor if we do not advocate or care about injustices around us (Isa 59:14-16)? If we do not care about the life of the city (the polis)? Politics isn’t a separate area of life. It is the communal life of people together.

Is it possible to overemphasize politics? Absolutely. The (instrumental) hope of the world is the church, not the state. And societal change that is not brought about through the gospel is of limited longevity and eternally useless. But let’s not place extra wedges between the OT and NT approaches to the life of society. As I have sometimes communicated before, there are differences between the two, but the largest of these might be not a lessening of theocracy (God’s rule over Israel), as is sometimes thought, but an increasing of theocracy (Christ’s rule over all nations).

See Haykin’s short article here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-192474359