In politics, the main goal is to propose policy that will
pass, that is as close to your worldview as possible.
In theology, the goal is to articulate as biblical a
worldview as possible.
Both of these are good stewardship of differing vocations.
But they sometimes don’t play well together.
Theonomists want there to be a single goal, same in politics
and theology, but that’s absurd. Do lawyers
and doctors have the exact same calling, besides the generic, “to help people”?
I’m not advocating for a radical division between the two
kingdoms (R2K). It’s not theonomy or
R2K. There are different spheres of
activity with differing specific aims (Kuyper).
Say no to pro-life abolitionism. They are currently fighting against and
defeating pro-life bills that would outlaw SOME abortions, just because they
don’t outlaw ALL abortions.
Their zeal to call for repentance directly in political life
is admirable, but then you have to do the work of making a law with many in the
room who do not repent. Do we just take
our ball and go home and leave them to write their ungodly rules for us, or
work to get our nation as close to godliness as we can? Are we anabaptists, now, who drop out of
society when they don’t meet God’s standards rigorously enough for us?
Should I not go to work tomorrow because I know I’m not
going to do my job perfectly?
Perfectionism in theological sanctification wreaks all kinds
of carnage on people.
Abolitionist perfectionism will do the same.
Working for the possible politically is not compromise, but
courage. It’s actual engagement with the
culture, instead of demanding all or nothing like a toddler throwing a tantrum.
Abolitionists overly confuse the theological and
political. Of course we want to apply
God’s truth to the public square. But we
don’t quit and work against people and legislators accepting SOME of it, if
they refuse to accept ALL of it.