Response to “The Political Dimension of the Gospel” by Gao Hang

In “The Political Dimension of the Gospel,” Gao Hang provides a deeply biblical and appropriately controversial exposition of the deeply and profoundly political nature of the Christian gospel.

Gao notes that the New Testament writings express the gospel in profoundly political terms, using language such as “nation,” “army,” “king,” “judgment,” “justice,” “commonwealth,” and “citizens.” The triune God’s kingdom economy is the overarching framework within which we can begin to understand and evaluate earthly politics.

Gao is right: the Christian gospel is inextricably political. The ancient world used the term “gospel” to describe the announcement of important events accomplished by kings and princes: a city’s capture, an opposing army’s defeat, or a king’s entrance into a region. Likewise, the New Testament writings use the world “gospel” to announce the most important breaking political news of all time.

But what is this breaking news? The apostle Paul summarizes this something—the Christian gospel—when writing to the Corinthians. He writes in 1 Corinthians 15:1–5:

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

According to Paul, therefore, the gospel is an announcement that Paul received from God through Christ, and now passes on to others. Significantly, it is an announcement that Jesus is the “Christ,” the promised Messiah; that he died a saving death for sin; that he was buried; that he was raised from the dead, thus signifying that he is the cosmic king and that he will one day resurrect the fallen cosmos; and that the resurrection is a public (and, indeed, political) truth revealed to many witnesses.

But just who is this Christ and what are the implications of his rule? In 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, the Christ is described as the anointed one, the promised Israelite king who would come from the Davidic line. He is the anointed one who will rule the nations (Ps. 2), the one who will atone for the sins of Israel and the nations (Isa. 53:3–10), and the one who will bring renewal to the whole of the created order (Isa. 65). The resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, the one who was slaughtered publicly on a cross, is, in fact, the King over all creation!

Further, Gao is right to assert that the church has a profoundly political dimension: it is an outpost of the kingdom, populated by ambassadors of the king. I would add that the church’s political nature can be seen in its institutional and organic dimensions. As an institution, the church gathers around word and table to declare that Jesus is Lord (and Caesar is not). As an organism, the church scatters into various sectors of society and spheres of culture as ambassadors of the king. Taken together, the institutional and organic dimensions provide Christians with a multi-faceted ambassadorship.

Significantly, Gao is perceptive to note the ways in which Satan impersonates Christ by producing counterfeit earthly versions of the Lord’s heavenly kingdom. Take, for example, the phenomenon of nationalism. As political philosopher Sheldon Woldin and theologian C. C. Pecknold have argued, modern nation-states have taken the New Testament concept of corpus mysticum and applied it to themselves. Supporting their view of the nation-state as a mystical body, they offer their citizens a narrative of the world (with the nation-state at the center), a text to which they appeal (e.g. a written constitution), and rituals (e.g. national holidays) to disciple them into that narrative.

Finally, the essay’s theme is important not only in ecclesial contexts where Christians are persecuted overtly by the government but also in contexts where governmental opposition is implicit or more muted. When ambassadors of the king are willing to suffer for the sake of the gospel, they are making a profound statement to the watching world: there is nothing earthly governments can give or that death can take that surpasses the supreme value of citizenship in the kingdom of Christ. There is no amount of political incentive or disincentive that changes the Christian’s all-surpassing love for the benevolent cosmic king.

The Western reader of Gao’s essay will be challenged not only by his faithful exposition of the political dimension of the gospel but also by the need to differentiate Gao’s political context from our own. One noteworthy difference is the relative social and political freedom offered to citizens in a Western context, which frees the church organic to participate in politics and seek cultural renewal in a more multi-faceted manner. Another significant difference is the Judeo-Christian social residue that still exists in our cultural heritage, offering Western Christians the opportunity to draw upon that heritage and the challenge of reforming society’s misunderstandings about the gospel. Still other differences exist, yet these two examples suffice to help the reader reflect upon the differences in Gao’s context and our own.

Gao ends his essay with an appeal for God’s people to be in the world but not of the world, and to let the political dimension of their lives therefore not be tainted by inordinate or misguided allegiance to earthly kingdoms. Indeed, let us, God’s ambassadors, recognize that we are sent by Christ in the same way that Christ was sent by the Father (John 20:21): to speak the truth of the kingdom to earthly powers, to live sacrificially as agents and previews of the coming kingdom, and to do so with a humble confidence. For one day Christ will return to set the world to rights and, on that day, justice will roll down like the waters and his ambassadors will enjoy the fruits of his consummated kingdom.

Bruce Riley Ashford is Senior Fellow at the Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology (Cambridge, U.K.). He was formerly a professor and provost at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He resides in Raleigh, NC, and is the author or co-author of nine books, including The Gospel of Our King (Baker Academic) and The Doctrine of Creation (IVP Academic). He also serves as a political consultant, columnist, and speechwriter.

His focus is on “Christianity for the common good,” or how Christianity can be thoughtfully applied to public life. He writes primarily on politics and public life, but also on cultural institutions and activities that can be helpful for achieving the public good.