The Church’s main responsibility is evangelism and discipleship, not political activism. Our call as believers is to change people through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not to change society through social reformation.
My two cents
But that statement implies that Diocletian knew better than Constantine. It’s a rather modernistic way of thinking formed by a mindset that reduces religion to the private sphere (with humanism or paganism filling the void in the public sphere). It’s alien to the Bible verses that demonstrate God’s claim on the earth as exhaustive (Psalm 24:1, 1 Corinthians 10:26) and in any case it’s the epistles that give direction to the state and its political scope (Romans 13).
Another thing is that the Gospels are silent on a number of moral issues. I’d rather not reduce Scripture to four books, but if I had to, I’d take my cues from Matthew 4:4 (man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God). As a result, the dichotomy between personal revival and social change is a bit false.
If individual churches don’t want to lobby on some piece of legislation, then fine, they can step back—let believers themselves fill the void. To advocate neutrality and silence over everything else is to take lordship from Jesus and give it to someone else; he is not a lord, he is the Lord. His lordship ought not to be limited to the narrow domain of innermost thoughts or devotions.
I think I’m going to keep revising this post as I ponder over it.
Torres, A. (n.d.). Dominion Theology. Available: http://www.biblicist.org/bible/dominion.shtml. Last accessed 8th Mar 2011.