Wineskins Contributor・03/04/19

David Lipscomb andCivil Government[1]

               DavidLipscomb’s work, On Civil Government, challenges some of the basicassumptions many have concerning the relationship of the church and the state.This volume was written in themid-nineteenth century, but its message resonates today in our current chargedpolitical environment. In the last decade, the work of Trinity College economicprofessor Edward Stringham has brought renewed interest in the political theoryof David Lipscomb.[2]Stringham sees a connection between the thought of Lipscomb and many modernradical libertarians. Stringham believes that Lipscomb’s work is a timelytreatise on how one can be a Christian and a libertarian. Lipscomb’s CivilGovernment was originally a set of articles that were written in the Gospel Advocate from between 1866-1867. Thetiming of these articles is important due to the aftermath of the carnage anddestruction of the American Civil War.

               Lipscomb’sbiblical wisdom can help modern American Christians as they navigate the choppywaters of how one should relate to the empires and kingdoms of man. It is hardnot to notice the deep political divisions in the country and those fault linesrun through the center of the church. From gauging the vitriol in many socialmedia posts and animosity between members of Christ body regarding politics Lipscomb’s corrective ongovernment is needed. In this article, I will examine and respond to thefollowing tenets of Lipscomb’s political theory: his view of the origin ofcivil government, the early church’s relationship to the civil government, andthe relationship of contemporary Christians with the government.

               To beginwith, Lipscomb differentiated government into the categories of God’s kingdomrule and the governments of man in a strict antithesis (Lipscomb, 43). Lipscombsaid that man’s kingdoms typically exist to “enrich, gratify the appetites andlusts, and promote the grandeur and glory of the rulers” (Lipscomb, 25).Lipscomb traces the beginning of human government to the founding of Nimrod’skingdoms in Genesis 10:8–10 (Lipscomb, 12). Lipscomb believed that God ordainedthese kingdoms due to man’s rebellion (Lipscomb, 12). In the same way that Godcapitulated and gave Israel a king, God allowed humanity to rule autonomously and,in a sense, to be their gods (Lipscomb, 23). The ultimate origin of the schismbetween God’s rule and man’s rule came when Adam and Eve gave into the serpentand abdicated their sovereignty under God to the Devil (Lipscomb, 12). InLipscomb’s schemata, God ordained government to punish the disobedient(Lipscomb, 23).

               Next,Lipscomb demonstrates the relationship of the early Christians to thegovernment of their day. The juxtaposition of the Christian movement and thesecular authorities is highlighted at the beginning of the story of Christ inthat Herod the Great attempts to destroy the Christ child because he is deemed as a threat to Herod’s hegemony(Lipscomb, 46–47). Lipscomb also shows that in the temptation of Jesus Satanhas the authority to give Christ the kingdoms of this world, and this showsthat Satan has dominion over the secular powers (Lipscomb, 55). The clash withGod’s kingdom is further evidenced in the persecution of the early church bythe secular powers (Lipscomb, 64–65). Lipscomb effectively shows that theearliest Christians were under authoritative apostolic teaching to do thefollowing: live peaceably in their lives, honor the emperor, pray for the civilmagistrate, pay taxes, and seek the good of their communities (Lipscomb,69–75). To Lipscomb, for a Christian of the first century to be involved in thepolitical order would be absurd.

               The onegreat strength of Lipscomb’s argument is found in his application of theBible’s teaching as it relates to how Christians relate to the government.Lipscomb masterfully points out that the phrases used in the New Testament suchas “be subject to” and “submit to” display a relationship of the subject andthe government that is antagonistic and separate (Lipscomb, 76). The Christianis distinct from the government and in the Bible’s admonitions about a Christian’srelationship with the government it never tells the Christian to love thegovernment or participate in governmental affairs (Lipscomb, 77). In contrast,the Christian is told to submit to the spiritual authorities of the church andto love the church through active participation and joint support (Lipscomb,77).  I believe this is one of thestrengths of Lipscomb’s argument. It acts as a corrective for some of the rabidjingoism that I witness in the church today.  

               Anotherstrength of Lipscomb’s argument is his call to radical separateness from theworld. The story of Abraham shows how God called him to leave his natural tiesto family and to go to a land and live wholly to the Lord (Lipscomb, 17). Ibelieve the heirs of the Restoration Movement have compromised too much in ouraffections for this world. We have been sectarian about some ecclesial issues,but we are worldly in dress, entertainment options, and are uber-patriotic inour attitudes toward the current political climate. We have put our faith hopeand trust in political systems and candidates and not in Jesus Christ. Lipscombbelieved that politicians and elected officials would use Christians to advancetheir cause and agenda. Lipscomb believed that if Christians voted orparticipated in governmental affairs, then their devotion to Christ would becompromised. It seems that Lipscomb is calling for sectarianism that emphasizesa radical kingdom concept when it comes to the world. I find it fascinatingthat we will call for separateness on matters of church practice and worshippatterns but then accept without discernment the radical hedonism and politicalcompromise of our age.

               Lipscombalso promotes a strong sense of pacifism. Lipscomb rightly points out that manywars come from the whims of governments that force people into warfare thatwould normally live peaceably (Lipscomb, 95). Lipscomb explains that a personfrom Maine and Texas or India and England would typically live in peace withone another, but governmental authorities bring them into conflict to promotetheir self-aggrandizing position.  Manyblame Lipscomb’s pacifism on his experience with the Civil War, but that position is untenable.  In the last chapter of Civil Government Lipscomb traces the development of Christian thoughtin matters of civil government from the fourth to the fifteenth century showingthat he was well read on the subject of pacifism. Lipscomb was heavily influenced by his mentor TolbertFanning and was also conversant other movements that refused to participate incivil affairs such as the Quakers, the Anabaptists, and Dunkards.

Lipscomb did not adhere to the post-Enlightenment fact-value dichotomy. As Iread Lipscomb, I was inspired and challenged by his radical view of kingdomethics. Lipscomb did not allow Christians to carve up their lives into a publicsphere and private religious sphere. If a Christian is called to a robust role as a peacemaker, then it Lipscomb’sthought it would be impossible for them to take up the sword for the state. Lipscombwould go so far as to say that a Christian that voted for a regime that broughtabout warfare and bloodshed would be just as guilty as the one shedding theblood.

                Let ustake to heart Lipscomb’s warning concerning making unholy alliances with thestate and compromising with power. I also believe we need to take Lipscomb’sapproach to the critique of governmentseriously. What I mean by that is that we should look at the concept of themodern state in light of Scripture and Scripture should be sovereign in thatcritique. What many modern Christians have done is to draw their theory aboutgovernment and politics from the current system and then turn to the Scriptureto make that prevailing theory fit. Lipscomb brings a paradigm shift bybeginning with Scripture. That is why it is so hard for our modern hearts andminds to fathom the implications of Lipscomb’s thought. We push back onLipscomb’s political theory because it means we must divest of power (kenosis-Phil 2) and become servants. Divestment of power or kenosis is the opposite ofthe concept of modern political sovereignty. Contemporary sovereignty inpolitics believes a candidate or elected official has a political agenda andthey will cajole, connive, or use raw power to get their agenda pushed through.In an age when bipartisanship in Washington is a joke the idea of divestment ofpower is like an alien from another planet.

               Lipscomb’sCivil Government has challenged myheart.  As I read Lipscomb, I tried to imaginethe compatibility of being a Christian and a statesman. Lipscomb would chide meand say that I am asking the impossible. Possibly it is too much of AbrahamKuyper’s political theory rolling around in my head, but I do believe there isa paradigm that we can turn to in the Bibleto see a way forward for a postmodern Christian political theory. I proposethat Christians should take a viewpointthat is totally in line with the narrative arc of Scripture and that is theview of God’s people being exiles. We are aliens in a strange land. But thatdoes not mean that we should practice dispensationalist escapism. We can’t havethe view that any political involvement or work for a better social order islike polishing the deck rails on the Titanic. Jeremiah tells those that areabout to go into Babylonian exile, “But seek the welfare of the city where Ihave sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in itswelfare you will find your welfare. (Jeremiah 29:7 ESV)” We belong to God’skingdom, and as Christians, we are advanced signs for the world to see what Godmeant by the dominion mandate in the Garden. Jesus was the ultimate example ofwhat true humanity looks like and what sovereignty means. We live in exile in aworld that has been taken captive by the evil one, but by our involvement in every aspect of life, we bring God’s kenosis love to this world. I propose Danielas an example of what a Kingdom-centered diplomat is. Daniel never compromised hisidentity but served the Babylonian administration in a way that brought honorto God and brought God’s wisdom to bearto our broken world.

               In conclusion,I hope this article will renew interestin an amazing man and challenging thinker. This little book will stay with mefor a while as I wrestle with my view of the relationship between the state and the believer. I do wholeheartedly agree with Lipscomb in that Godis the only trustworthy lawgiver and ruler that we can give our allegiance too.As one comes into the Kingdom rule of Jesus,the need for the rule of man diminishes. As humanityis transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit, our affections are drawn away from man and his empire, and we are drawn to the self-emptying love of KingJesus.

[1]All in text citations come from Lipscomb’s Civil Government.

[2]See Edward Stringham’s “The Radical Libertarian Political Economy of 19thCentury Preacher David Lipscomb,” Mercatus Center: George Mason University,April 2009.