Preston Sprinkle - Exiles: The Church in the Shadow of Empire

Book "Review"

First, I’m thankful to the publisher for receiving an advance reading copy of this book. This review is not a thorough engagement with the book—it’s more a list of questions and concerns.

I appreciate many of Sprinkle's points, and especially his basic message that we need to take the Bible seriously in our political discussions. Amen! We have no king but Christ-halleluiah! We should live as exiles, without identifying completely with any earthly political party or kingdom. Sure. Many Christians need to repent of their political idolatry. Trump is not the Lord’s annointed. And neither was Obama. However, the tone of the book didn't really contain anything that would make liberal, or progressive, Christians angry. Most of his practical applications seemed aimed at conservative Christians who support the Republican party. That's understandable, given how many conservative evangelicals seemed to abandon their standards when it came to Trump’s character, compared to Bill Clinton. But a larger issue is a lack of nuance in his guiding framework of "empire" and "exiles."

Empire?

One main problem with Sprinkle is his simplistic and under-developed view of “empire.” He cites Peter Leithart’s study a few times (Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective). But Leithart’s account seems to conflict with Sprinkle’s. For Leithart, “empire” is not always a bad word:

The Bible refuses to smooth the historical phenomenon of “empires” into a singular “empire.” For Scripture, it is not the case that empire is empire is empire, which is the oddly ahistorical assumption adopted by some of the most historically sophisticated biblical scholars of our day. Empire differs from empire; Babel and Persia cannot be collapsed into one another. As living political orders, no empire is static over time. Rome is sometimes the church’s protector, sometimes a bestial devourer of holy flesh, sometimes the monstrous steed of a harlot-city drunk with saintly blood (Leithart, Between Babel and Beast, 3).

Sprinkle misses this nuance and so his entire project is built on a simplistic understanding of “empire.”

Really Radical?

Sprinkle writs:

The first-century church wasn’t an apolitical spiritual gathering where individual Christians left their Roman politics at the door and picked them up on their way out. It certainly wasn’t a place where Christians mounted a Roman flag next to a Christian one. Rather, church was the foretaste of God’s kingdom, a colony of heaven on earth. It was a place, a family, a gathering where God’s plan for governing the world was being revealed and practiced, where participants submitted themselves to God’s rule in realms like economics, immigration, bodily autonomy, war, violence, power, justice, and sexuality (13).

Noticeablly absent from this list is “education.” Now, the early church did not form a fully-formed educational philosophy or program. It tended to focus more on “catechesis,”—specifically religious instruction—rather than what we think of as “education.” But, this catechesis was itself demanding. It could take up to three years. The church later adopted, and helped to produce, the synthesis that we now call “classical Christian education.” But, Sprinkle’s omission is telling. For many Christians today, education is off-limits. The government’s role in overseeing and implementing education is assumed. To really think like “exiles,” we need to challenge the secular government’s imperial dominance in the education of our covenant children.

Sprinkle again:

Social justice. Concern for the poor. Economic checks on the rich. Redistribution of wealth. Forgiveness of debt. These aren’t liberal or Marxist or ‘woke’ ideals. They’re straight out of the Bible. So are other values like small government, limits on centralized power, and able-bodied people working hard and saving for the future. When Christians think about money and economics, we need to stop letting the rhetoric and categories of Babylon’s culture wars shape our values. The Bible provides us with some rich categories for thinking about things (40).

Sprinkle’s point is well taken. We need to let the Bible set the terms of the debate. We need to think in Biblical categories. I’ve explored how the Lord’s Supper can inform our understanding and practice of economics. Unfortunately, he’s stacking the deck with his use of terms like “social justice,” “redistribution of wealth,” and “forgiveness of debt.” Those phrases mean very particular things in our culture today. Too many progressives and liberal Christians will read this and import ideas about college-debt forgiveness, reparations for African Americans, and BLM. The laws of Israel were given to the covenant-people of God. If we are going to apply the theocratic laws (or at least the principles behind the laws) of Israel to our nation, then doesn’t that make us some type of “Christian nationalist”? At the least, isn’t the closest parallel the church? The Jewish people were allowed to enslave non-Jews and charge interest on loans to non-Jews. The laws Sprinkle draws from were to guide and inform the social life of the people of God. So, yes, let’s apply those principles to our interactions with other Christians. But, where’s the justification for the hermeneutical leap that wants to find Biblical support for our secular governmental policies? Again, this sounds suspiciously like Christian nationalism!

Leaning Left

Sprinkle consistently leans “left” in this book. His practical examples of what it might mean to “live like exiles” in America would all make liberal Democrats happy. There’s nothing here to anger them. But, if we’re truly preaching Paul’s Gospel, the Gospel that caused riots, why aren’t liberal and progressive Christians attacking Sprinkle? Maybe it’s because he’s so “winsome,” but if we really want to live as exiles, what about taking more radical steps? What about pulling our kids out of Babylon’s school system? Why not speak out strongly against the trans-agenda and the pro-LGBLT+ crusade? Yes, Babylon is expressed in military and economic dominance, but it is also manifested in sexual chaos and transgression of God’s Law. I know Sprinkle has written on those topics, and I haven’t read those books yet. So perhaps I’m speaking out of ignorance. But, I also know others, like Rosaria Butterfield and Denny Burk, are concerned about Sprinkle leaning “left” in those areas as well. The Jews and early Christians were mocked and scorned for their economic life, their purity laws and crazy sexual ideals. Where’s the progressive attack on Sprinkle? Or is he fitting in too much with the cultural ethos of Babylon?

I appreciate what Sprinkle is trying to do here, and I appreciate his stated humility throughout the book. Let’s really live like radical exiles, and tick off people on the Right and the Left—just like Jesus did. We can at least agree on that.