We can’t just talk reformation into being.

Calum Darroch’s article in Islander VI received one article already; here, again, I focus on it to bring what is in small part a disagreement but in larger part a development of the idea, transplanted into a more coherent and consciously Christian worldview, where its truth belongs. Darroch speaks of the necessity of disengaging from the hamster wheel (my words) of modernity’s social structures, of rebuilding within the allowance but outside the limelight. Open antiestablishmentarianism (to re-apply a word) is an excuse for persecution; he proposes that rebuilding starts at the bottom, in the real world, and from the individual (p. 15-16).

The basic point is well-made and necessary.

Darroch presents a two-pronged approach to the problems of the modern day: on the one hand, develop areas where the establishment’s reign is weakened or averted; on the other hand, develop personal (and institutional) competency to take advantage of such opportunities as the establishment allows (p. 16). He points out, quite correctly, that (often but not always) “‘political engagement’ [meaning malingering or prognosticating online; meaning punditry; meaning all that is merely talk]… is the passive endeavor, for what seems like active participation is nothing but idle talk” (p. 16).

The Christian ought to learn a similar lesson from Scripture. God does not tell us in His word that we are to prioritize talking about politics so that everybody knows our opinions. God tells us instead to go build up families (Eph. 5; Deut. 6), to develop personal relationships with the brethren (John 13:34-35; Rom. 13:8-10), to cultivate the world via vocation (economics) (Gen. 1:28), and to spread the word of truth to those around us through word and deed both (Matt. 28:18-20).

I am not denigrating political activity; far from it. My civil-government theonomy is flagrant. The critical point we must analyze, when we engage with politics (as with all else), is whether our actions are fruitful. God advised that political imprecations may be wise- when they are of use to effect actual change (Luke 18:1-8). God commands us to establish justice on the earth, including in civil government (Gen. 9:5-6). Thus, talking politics can be of use when it serves to give men tools they would not otherwise have: useful knowledge; motivation; understanding of where to go. Lex Rex was worth writing.

But we easily find ourselves stuck on activism that really means nothing in the end. Merely stirring up a tempest in our particular teapot, merely yelling, has little value. If our political dialogue is merely a means of complaining, of signalling membership of an in-group, or such-like, we should set it aside. Worse, if political action becomes a distraction from other, more important duties, if we choose the less fruitful political shouting match over the comparatively hard work of building in the real world (including in civil government, in political institution, and in political theology), we sin.

We are called to bear fruit, to steward wisely. Making noise online is often fun. But it often bears much less fruit than what we could be doing instead. As somebody who makes noise online, I have had to consider this question at times: am I pursuing a path of real fruitfulness? I must be careful that when I speak, I provide something worth the time both you and I will spend on it. Helping others to build up their worldview (even as I build up my own) is fruitful work; I must guard, nonetheless, against making this a goal in and of itself.

And, no matter how fruitful such work may be, it is not the first duty of a Christian, which is to God, nor may it crowd out the other very real duties flowing from that duty to God. Christians have a responsibility to be more than sayers of the word; we must also be doers (James 1:22-25). We are also called to recognize that the internet and the sphere of political discourse is only a means, not an end. All the talk in the world has weight only when it moves towards action, towards systematic, enacted righteousness.

Thus, real-life relationships and real-life results must not be set aside; in the long-run, they are just as foundational as the thought-process (being produced by good soul, which includes right thought, and producing both in turn). Christians must develop real-life, on-the-ground relationships, with family (where Providence permits) and with brothers in the faith (ditto). We must build God-honoring social institutions, in seed or frame perhaps, and reform those which we have. We must work out righteousness in and under civil government, calling leaders to account and then, to the extent God gives to our authority, actually holding them to account.

Speak, yes, but do not neglect to do.

(And go read the article- Darroch goes in somewhat different direction than I have here, one lacking in God-centeredness and therefore of mitigated realism but insightful nonetheless.)

God bless.