You wrote:
“Here’s my 2 cents.
Total agreement that a Christian may be involved in politics without losing his identity. We are also in agreement that the bible lends importance and even holiness to governance and law. Less than total agreement that Jesus had any regard for politics or law making.
His teaching, as I interpret it, is antithetical to them.
He was accommodating, at best. He was diplomatic towards those who wielded power and influence, including lawyers, politicians, and clergy. He was charitable towards those who valued and cherished the old customs and laws. He saw politics and law as perhaps necessary but temporary evils. The emphasis is on temporary, serving to protect ourselves from ourselves until we wake up, and our self-destructive hostility ceases.
Only by the loosest possible interpretation can Luke 10:27 be thought of as a political statement:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”
The call for love is foundational, the cornerstone of Christianity. Jesus demonstrated the unreality of the world-at-large (perception) with conviction, grace and power. He didn’t do this in order to make it a better home, but to restore us to reality. Heaven (knowledge) is our reality, our home. Paradoxically, he taught that by giving all to all, we have everything. God, being love, only gives.
Like merchants and businessmen, politicians, barter and bargain. Deal making is a strategy for giving less, in order to get more, the surest way to bankrupt the soul, and squander our rightful inheritance from Spirit. God gave us everything in the beginning.
Love never bargains, it only gives. Jesus’ teaching was singularly simple and unequivocally powerful. He and his disciples didn’t have time for political pursuits. He demonstrated only love with every word, act and gesture in his life. He showed us that there is no time, and nothing else that we need.
Apologies if this comes across as dogmatic. This is only my take, of course.”
On Facebook I said no apologies needed. I am the one that usually comes across dogmatic. Politics is a bloodsport, so maybe there is no way to bridge the Christian Faith. If it were not for God’s common grace, mixing politics and the Christian faith would be fruitless.
What is meant by common grace?
“Abraham Kuyper understood common grace as God’s non-saving grace extended to all humanity, restraining sin, enabling civic virtue, and preserving creation’s goodness, distinct from special grace which saves the elect.
Reference: Kuyper, Abraham. Common Grace: God’s Gifts for a Fallen World. Translated by Nelson D. Kloosterman and Ed M. van der Maas. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian’s Library Press, 2016.”
To start, I appreciate your effort to bridge our perspectives while respectfully addressing our differences. I find in Abraham Kuyper’s political philosophy a biblically faithful approach. I’ll respond through his framework of sphere sovereignty, common grace, and the Christian’s cultural mandate, while hopefully engaging with your points and seeking common ground. I’ll aim to be concise. As you read the following, while it may seem so, I am not overly dependent on Kuyper.
A necessary digression:
“Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) was a Dutch theologian, politician, journalist, and educator, renowned for his contributions to theology, politics, and Christian social thought. Born in Maassluis, Netherlands, Kuyper grew up in a devout Reformed family. He studied at Leiden University, earning a doctorate in theology in 1862. Initially influenced by theological liberalism, Kuyper experienced a conversion to orthodox Calvinism, shaping his lifelong commitment to Reformed theology.
Kuyper became a pastor in 1863, serving in rural churches before moving to Amsterdam in 1870. His pastoral work fueled his passion for engaging faith with public life. In 1872, he founded the newspaper De Standaard, using it to advocate for Christian principles in society. He later established the Free University of Amsterdam in 1880, a Christian institution independent of state control, to advance Reformed scholarship.
Politically, Kuyper was a transformative figure. He founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party in 1879, the first modern political party in the Netherlands, which opposed secular revolutionary ideals and championed Christian governance. As a member of parliament (1874–1877, 1894–1901) and prime minister (1901–1905), he promoted “sphere sovereignty,” a principle asserting that different spheres of life (family, church, state) have distinct God-given authority, resisting state overreach.
Kuyper’s theology emphasized God’s sovereignty over all creation, inspiring Christians to engage culture actively. His lectures, like the 1898 Stone Lectures at Princeton, popularized his ideas globally, notably influencing neo-Calvinism. He wrote extensively, with works like Lectures on Calvinism articulating his vision of faith shaping society.
Despite controversies, including his conservative stances on issues like women’s suffrage, Kuyper’s legacy endures in Christian political thought, education, and cultural engagement. He died in The Hague in 1920, leaving a profound impact on Dutch society and global Reformed theology.”
Affirming Our Common Ground:
We agree that Christians can participate in politics without losing their identity and that the Bible ascribes significance to governance and law. Kuyper’s theology supports this, viewing the state as a God-ordained sphere with a divine purpose to uphold justice and order (Romans 13:1-4). His concept of sphere sovereignty holds that each sphere—state, church, family, etc.—has its own God-given authority, accountable to Christ’s lordship. We also share a conviction that love, as articulated in Luke 10:27 (“love God and neighbor”), is the heart of Christian faith. Kuyper would see this love as guiding Christian engagement across all spheres, including politics.
Our disagreement lies in Jesus’ regard for politics and law. I believe you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) that His teachings are antithetical to them, viewing them as temporary evils accommodated diplomatically until humanity awakens to love’s reality. From Kuyper’s perspective, Jesus affirms politics and law as part of God’s created order, which Christians are called to redeem through love, while addressing legitimate concerns about their transactional nature.
Kuyper’s Lens on Jesus, Politics, and Law:
You suggest Jesus saw politics and law as necessary but temporary evils, serving until humanity transcends hostility. Kuyper’s theology offers a different view: For example, Christ’s sovereignty extends over all creation, including the state, which is not inherently evil but a creational good sustained by common grace. Common grace enables even fallen institutions to function for God’s purposes, restraining sin and promoting justice (Genesis 9:6). Jesus’ teachings don’t reject politics or law but reorient them under His lordship.
- Jesus’ Engagement with Authority: You describe Jesus as diplomatic toward political and legal figures, accommodating them pragmatically. Kuyper would interpret Jesus’ words, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21), as affirming the state’s legitimate role within its sphere. The state has authority to govern temporal matters (e.g., taxes, justice), but its power is limited by God’s ultimate sovereignty. For Kuyper, this isn’t mere accommodation but a call for Christians to engage the state faithfully, ensuring it serves its divine purpose without overreaching into the church or individual conscience.
- Law and Love: You argue that Luke 10:27 isn’t a political statement, emphasizing love’s transcendence over temporal systems. Kuyper would agree that love is foundational but insist it has political implications. The command to love one’s neighbor requires Christians to pursue justice and flourishing in every sphere, including the state. Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 5:17) doesn’t abolish governance but reveals its true aim: to reflect God’s justice and love. A state informed by Christian principles, Kuyper argued, promotes the common good, protecting the weak and upholding order (Micah 6:8).
- Temporary Evils or Creational Goods? You view politics and law as temporary necessities, fading when humanity awakens to love. Kuyper’s common grace counters this, teaching that God sustains institutions like the state to function in a fallen world until Christ’s return. While imperfect, the state isn’t inherently evil; it’s part of God’s created order, designed to restrain chaos and enable human flourishing. Christians, Kuyper urged, should reform the state to align with God’s will, not abandon it as a mere evil.
Addressing Love and the Transactional Nature of Politics:
Your emphasis on love as selfless giving, contrasted with politics’ bartering and deal-making, is a good analysis. You argue that politics, by seeking to give less to get more, risks bankrupting the soul. Kuyper would share your concern about self-interested politics but offer a redemptive vision for Christian political engagement.
- Politics as Stewardship: Kuyper saw politics not as bartering but as stewardship of God’s creation. In his own career as a Dutch prime minister and leader of the Anti-Revolutionary Party, he sought to apply Christian principles to governance, advocating for education, labor rights, and religious freedom. For Kuyper, a Christian in politics, guided by love, works to ensure the state fulfills its God-given role—promoting justice and protecting all citizens—without succumbing to transactional logic. This aligns with Jesus’ call to serve others selflessly (Mark 10:42-45).
- Sphere Sovereignty as a Safeguard: Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty protects against the soul-bankrupting tendencies of politics. By confining the state to its role of public justice, it prevents totalitarian overreach or the idolatry of power. Christians in politics can embody love by advocating policies that reflect God’s heart—care for the poor, justice for the oppressed—while respecting the autonomy of other spheres (e.g., the church’s spiritual authority). This ensures political engagement serves love, not self-interest.
- Redeeming the Political Sphere: You suggest Jesus demonstrated the “unreality” of the world, pointing to Heaven as our true home. Kuyper would agree that Heaven is our ultimate destiny but emphasize that Christ’s lordship redeems the present world. The Incarnation affirms creation’s value, and Jesus’ acts of love—feeding the hungry, healing the sick (Luke 4:18-19)—show that love operates within earthly structures. Kuyper’s cultural mandate calls Christians to cultivate these structures, including politics, to reflect God’s Kingdom until the eschaton.
Finding Common Ground:
While you may see Jesus’ teachings as antithetical to politics, Kuyper’s framework suggests they transform it. We can find common ground in our shared commitment to love as the heart of Christian faith. Kuyper would agree that love never bargains—it gives fully, as God does. Where we differ is in how love engages the world. You emphasize transcending temporal systems; Kuyper calls for redeeming them. Yet, both perspectives affirm that Christians must embody Christ’s love in all they do.
Jesus’ command to love God and neighbor (Luke 10:27) is the ultimate guide for Christian life, whether we see politics as a temporary necessity or a sphere to redeem. I am in agreement with you on this. See my article “Railings on the Roof Top, why? https://thereligionthatstartedinahat.org/2018/02/03/railings-on-your-roof-top-why/
For Kuyper, a Christian in politics can reflect this love by pursuing justice selflessly, avoiding the transactional traps you rightly critique. Perhaps we can agree that any political engagement must be subordinate to love, ensuring it serves God’s Kingdom rather than worldly gain.
Moving Forward:
Your perspective on love’s transcendence definitely challenges me to keep eternity in view, and I hope Kuyper’s vision offers a complementary call to engage the world redemptively. Thank you again for this exchange, it’s a privilege to grapple with these ideas.
I have written much more on politics. For example:
Romans 13 and the limits of submission to ungodly rulers
A 5 out of 5 stars review:
Romans 13 – among the most misinterpreted, misused, and misunderstood of Scriptures
Reviewed in the United States
Verified Purchase
“Jack Kettler, in the most direct and simplest of terms, has managed to clarify and verify, from Scripture and Godly reasoning, the gist and true meaning and application of Romans 13 so that instead of being a tool of the state, it becomes a tool of the believer.”– Former U.S. Congressional candidate endorsed by Dr. Ron Paul.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 