Christians and Government (Part 1)
September 4th, 2008
(By Nathan Williams)
With the Democratic National Convention being held last week, and the Republican National Convention being held this week, our country will turn attention increasingly to the issue of politics and government. Without a doubt the election that will be held in November will be one of the most important elections we have had in some time. With the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, we will now have a history making election no matter who wins. The issues being debated are extremely important to our nation including the war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, the economy, and so on.
As our country becomes more and more enamored with the political process this fall, I’d like to turn our attention as Christians to specifically what the Bible has to say concerning government. We must think biblically about the state and about our responsibility to the state. Scripture gives very specific teaching regarding the role of government and how a Christian should respond to government. Today, I’d like to discuss the reason for the existence of government.
Primarily, we have government because God has ordained that government exist. Romans 13:1 tells us to submit to government, and then it gives us the reason we must submit. We must submit because those placed in government over us have been placed there by God. No one becomes the governor of California or President of the United States unless God ordains it. Throughout all of history, God has selected those who will rule. For example, in Isaiah 45:1,5-6 God makes it very clear that He is the one who has raised Cyrus into political power.
Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed . . . I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, That people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other.
Consequently, the one who disobeys government disobeys the direct command of God, and because he has directly disobeyed God’s command, he will suffer judgment. This judgment may come from the hand of the government itself, or it may come from the hand of God through other means.
The point is that the major reason we have government is because God has ordained that we have it. Government is not an accident. Government is not an evil and terrible thing, despite what many will tell you today. God has instituted the family, the church, and the state. We spend much of our time thinking about the church and the family, and rightly so. From time to time we need to stop and ponder our relationship to the third institution that God has ordained, government.
The second reason that we have government is that the state is ordained to restrain evil doers and promote those who do good.
John Calvin says that governments are useful “…that the public tranquility may not be disturbed; that every person may enjoy his property without molestation; that men may transact their business together without fraud or injustice; that integrity and modesty may be cultivated among them…”
In other words, as Christians we must not consider the organized state as a bad thing. Calvin uses the adjective “useful” to describe his perspective on the state and I think its a helpful description of the proper Christian attitude.
Generally throughout history, though not without exceptions, governments have restrained people from evil and protected those who have done good. It is noteworthy that even though Paul suffered at the hand of his government multiple times for his faith, he still recognized the need for government and the place of government in restraining evil. Interestingly enough, John Macarthur notes in his commentary on Romans that the United States is one of the freest places to live in the world, with the least government intrusion, but we also suffer from one of the highest crime rates in the civilized world. One in every 100 Americans is in jail right now. The point is that government involvement often lowers the rate of violent crime and biblically this is exactly the purpose of the state. In Romans 13:4 it says government has authority from God to inflict punishment, even to the point of inflicting the death penalty.
Government is also placed over us to promote our good. It is certainly not wrong for Christians to expect protection and benefits from government. We live in a fallen world. People are sinful . . . and even Christians are sinful. God, in His kindness has given us the state as a means of restraining evil and promoting good.
I’m curious, Nathan, what your opinion is on the American Revolution, given much of it was justified on vaguely Christian grounds. Should the colonists have defied their existing government, even to the point of taking life in defense of their new government? Clearly disobedience is not only permitted but obligated, under certain circumstancces (e.g. hiding Jews in Nazi Germany), but does the American revolution qualify? I’m not sure.
With all due respect, I can’t think of a more dangerous ideology than this. The idea that gov’t is a benevolent institution that is only watching out for our good and benefit is a great threat to our nation. Our country was founded on the principles that gov’t will inevitably seek more and more power and control and must be restrained. It is a “necessary evil” put into place to protect it’s citizens but citizens must also be able to protect themselves from their gov’t.(Hence the Bill of Rights) Yes, no one can come to power apart from the Will of God but look at the wicked tyrants and dictators that He has allowed to rule. They are a judgment on a nation. It is precisely what Samuel warned against when the people demanded a king and refused to have God as their king. I would agree that the US is one of freest nations and I am grateful to God that I can worship Him in freedom but our God-given rights are slowly being eroded by politicians that no-longer follow the rule of law in our country, the Constitution. I would submit that the ideology that brought about our free nation was the exact opposite of the one written about here.
Like most debates, I believe there needs to be a balance. Personally, I am not sure that there are clear Biblical grounds for the Revolution. However, I do know that God is in control of governments, and so it was God that allowed the Americans to prevail.
Amanda- Then whast is your take on Romans 13, taking into account the nature of the Roman government at the time (i.e. arguably more corrupt and capricious than anything in modern U.S. history)?
Dave- Yes, God permitted the Americans to prevail. That victory does not justify the revolt, however, if the revolt wasn’t just to begin with.
J.P.H., I wouldn’t begin to say that the revolt was justified. My wife and I have had this discussion many times over. I, personally, do not believe that the rebellion was initiated on Biblical grounds, but mostly for financial reasons and political principles. My wife completely disagrees with me. I believe our children should consider this question as they study our nation’s history. I think it will help them to keep the Bible as the supreme authority in their own life. I was not attempting to justify the revolt. If I implied that, I apologize. I was merely trying to keep in mind that God, in His sovereignty, for His reasons, and ultimately for His glory, allowed/caused this nation to begin with the victory. I do not pretend to understand why or how God works.
Amanda,
You make a great point. It is dangerous to see government as some benevolent creature always inclined toward good. Governements, while given to restrain evil, are themselves often inclined toward evil. In fact, that is the very basis of the concept of a just war. People are sinful. Government checks that sin by punnishing it. Because governments are run by sinful people, they themselves are inclined toward sin. At which point competing governments check that sin.
That is why Calvin’s word (used by Nate) is carefully chosen. He called government “useful.” It would be tough to argue with that, but it is also a long way away from calling it benevolent.
In fact, the motives of the revolution aside, it is obvious from history that those who viewed government as an institution ordained by God to check evil, also have been those most in favor of a limited government. This is obvious in the West. The idea that people can be a check on government (democracy) comes from the idea that government is run by sinners who will themselves be judged by God.
Thanks,
Jesse
Great points. I’m looking forward to the rest of your discussion. I am frankly surprised that so many Christians are so incredibly wrapped up in the political scene.
I guess it really matters how you view the Kingdom of God in the sense that some would say that the Kingdom is now, and not at a future date. I personally hold that it is at a future time that the Lord will reign physically upon the throne and that it will be a kingdom of righteousness.
However for those who believe that the kingdom is for now, it is easy to see why they want to strive with all of their might in order to reform society and government, in order to vote in the next best “evangelical christian” – or as close as possible – politician. And it is even understandable why such a person would be so upset that Government is not fair, equitable, just and righteous.
I guess my point is that we must be careful how much we are led astray in our thinking by the philosophies of this world. This world, the ways of this world, will lead you to believe that the person who you elect as President is the most important decision in life. And yet, in another 4 years, we will be faced with the most important decision in life once again. God is the same God. Year after year. He is still sovereign. His choice is still good. Whether those whom He chooses to use are just or not, and we ought to still submit to them, as directed in scripture.
I think that there has been some caricature of those of us Christians who do spend a fair amount of time interested in politics and government, and who actually believe that the American Revolution was a just fight, not one in violation of Scripture.
I pay attention to what is going on because I am thankful (genuinely) that we live in a country which recognizes the existence of natural rights, rights which are inherent and come from God, not man. Because I believe that Government exists to protect rights and liberty, there is the responsibility to pay attention and be vigilant. So, while I understand that every four years is not the most important decision on the grand, divine scheme of things, I also believe that for our country’s sake we are to be vigilant. I have no desire for my children to grow up in a country like China. Accuse me of rearranging the deck on the Titanic, but there is something to be said for keeping things out of people’s way so that they can make it to the lifeboats (hope that analogy works, it did when I thought of it).
I also understand that God is sovereign over all things and that He places into power those whom He wills to place into power, but that has to be understood with the rest of His sovereignty. What I mean is, that He is not sovereign over all things and especially sovereign over who is in power, which seems to be implied (wrongly) by those who believe that Christians should ignore what goes on in the world.
Also, as for the American Revolution, which you did not mention but someone else did. . . I firmly believe it was justified. The war which was fought was not one based on an anarchist notion of getting rid of the government but on the premise that a right to revolt exists. Unfortunately I don’t have time to go into this, but going back to the Magna Carta, Blackwell’s Commentaries on the Law, certain Puritans and other English sources, as well as the support in English Parliament which the colonies had – a sound argument is easily made defending the Revolution and the principles on which it was fought. I would also ask where all the preachers were who should have (according to some people) been condemning the Revolution. I do not find any. Also, before condemning the Revolution you must take into account the entire historical context of what happened. Those who fought the Revolution did not rip out select portions of Scripture, they understood and taught them, these were not ignorant untaught people.
I do not condemn in anyway “paying attention” to what is going on in politics, or even participating in political discussions/issues. I have not, as you mentioned, even commented on the rightness of the revolution or any other such things.
What I would stress, if anything, is that many people (Christians) put so much more effort into reforming this society than they do into pursuing the heart of an individual with the Gospel. I pay attention to politics. I vote. I know what many of the issues are. I am incredibly thankful that we live in a free country. But I am also painfully aware that the great freedom in this country has allowed for and encouraged great corruption, licentiousness and an even greater propensity to disdain even the notion of God.
Should we forget the freedoms that we enjoy in this society? No. Should we ignore our role as citizens in this nation? No. But should our participation in these things outshine our participation in what God is doing in and through His church through the gospel? The answer to that is as obvious. Do I think that they are incompatible? To a large degree, yes. My personal opinion is that they are largely incompatible. Participation in the needs of the society and participation in the gospel are often incompatible because they are often opposed and at their foundation are promoting two distinctly different Kingdoms.
Thank the Lord for the freedom that we enjoy. Fulfill your duty as a citizen of this nation. But more than that, and even to the point of disdaining it of itself, fulfill your duty as a herald of the gospel and the coming Kingdom. Promote righteousness. But more than that, promote the coming righteous Kingdom.
Jonathan,
I’m glad I live in the USA and I pray that it remains a free nation so that we can worship God and bring Him glory. I also vote and keep myself informed. I’ve also made my voice known in various ways on some important political/social issues and I am thankful for the committed Christians who have run for office.
That being said, those who assert that the American Revolution was Biblically justified cannot make their case by sound exegesis of the relevant passages like Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-17. Those commands were given to believers who lived under an often cruel and capricious emperor.
There is only one biblically justified reason for believers to take up arms against their government and that is for self-defense (in the broadest sense of defending self, family or neighbors against physical violence from a corrupt government). In light of the historical facts, that’s a pretty difficult case to make for the colonials.
As to your assumption that few clergy stood against the revolution, I beg to differ. There were some clergy who did not support the revolution and spoke out against taking up arms against the King.
May I suggest a good article to you that was recently written regarding this issue by Dr. Gregg L. Frazer, Professor of History at the Master’s College. In the artical (Pastors: Get on the spiritual battlefield!), Frazer defends MacArthur’s statement that the American Revolution was not biblically justified. You can find the article here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71614.
That article will refer you to other sources.
By the way, God has providentially blessed America not because the colonists were Biblically justified, but because He is a gracious God who often overrules human error and sin for His own divine purposes and mercy. For that I am grateful.
Respectfully,
Steve Lamm
Rod,
Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it. I have heard to many people speak as though they are more godly because they ignore politics altogether (I am exaggerating slightly of course) which is why I said what I did.
I completely agree with you that our first allegiance is to God not our country. However I am not sure that I agree with you that – “Participation in the needs of the society and participation in the gospel are often opposed and at their foundation are promoting two distinctly different Kingdoms.” Can you explain what you mean by that?
Steve,
My assertion is not so much that the Revolution was Biblically justified, but that it was legally justified. In fact I would almost go as far as a History Professor of mine did, and say that the American Revolution was not a revolution at all, but more of a civil war that solidified what was already a reality. I believe that if the American Revolution was legally justified then it was de facto Biblically justified. This is based somewhat on my belief in natural law. While I see a certain amount of justification for natural law theory in the Bible I do not go as far as most, and squeeze it out of every other verse I see (one of the criticisms of the natural law proponents in the article you recommend).
I agree with the author and do have a serious problem with some of the hermeneutical leaps that people go to in order to read things into Scripture, particularly those from Dominion Theology camp.
I have to disagree with the fourth paragraph of the article, because I do believe that government’s powers are at some point derived from the consent of the people. Granted that this does not exist among a conquered people, or when a republic such as Rome changes its governmental form. The point is that at some point somewhere the people must consent to being governed, consent does come in different forms . . . if you catch my drift
Also, I think that the context of 1 Samuel 15:23 is Saul’s spiritual rebellion, not a rebellion against a government.
Reading through the article you suggested a few times, I think that I will e-mail the author and see if I can get hold of his dissertation.
I mean it in the simplest way possible, though I suspect that you are thinking of it much more deeply. Participation in the needs of the society in which we live, no matter how noble they may be, are all at their foundation based in a society that is anti-god and under the power of the evil one.
The church as an entity is in the world but not of the world, and by that I understand that we are as aliens in a foreign land. How do foreigners act in a strange land, particularly when they are to have a greater love for their home country? Should they be intimately involved in and immersed in the needs of that society? And how would that affect the love for their homeland. We all probably know many foreign students who come to the US in order to gain a better education with plans of returning back to their homeland for its betterment (if I may use that term) only to become entangled in the affairs of and glories of a life in the land of freedom, never to return “home” again.
Now for us, certainly those of us who truly know the Lord, we shall persevere so as to go home in the end. However how much are we side tracked and prevented from bearing more fruit for the coming kingdom by being enraptured by the present kingdom in which we live…fighting its causes, pleading for its residents?
There are many ailments in this society. And many are noble pursuits. But all still aimed at the betterment of this society which is of itself evil. It is not “for” God. It does not promote the God of the Bible. It in fact seeks to cease the God of the Bible. It does not want His morality or justice. It may covet His protection in prayer and on document, but it does not love His appearing. It is essentially evil through and through.
Though we may live in it and apply salt to its wounds, it will never remain salty. Though we may shed blood for its benefit, a million times over, it will never stain. It is evil. It will remain so until that Kingdom comes in which righteousness “dwells.” It will never dwell here and so I say that they are fundamentally opposed. One is fundamentally righteous. The other is fundamentally and at its root, evil.
Participating in the needs and causes of the society is reformation. The Gospel is transformation. I trust that you understand the way in which I am using these terms.
Rod,
Thanks for the explanation, it sounds like we are on the same page there.
The reason given by Paul for not allowing a woman to exercise authority over a man, as revealed in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, is simply that Adam was created first and was not deceived, while Eve was created last and was deceived. Aren’t Adam and Eve archetypes for all humanity, rather than only examples for the Church of Jesus Christ? I realize that secular venues will ignore Paul’s (God’s) prohibition of women exercising authority over men, but shouldn’t this Scripture prevent Christians from voting for a woman Vice Presidential candidate?
Lendon,
The context for 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is by who and addressed to who? It by Paul and addressed to Timothy. Paul is giving Timothy instruction regarding the Church and who is qualified to lead. Paul is not defining who is eligible to be the next Caesar. This whole of this text, taken in context prevents women from being Pastors / elders, not from holding elected office. If you want to take this context and stretch it as far as you can go with it, then you can argue that mothers should never tell their sons what do do, only their fathers should. Paul certainly is not saying that or anything like it! How about women police officers? Would you cite this verse to a female cop after pulling you over?
By the way, Al Mohler has written about women in elected leadership and I recommend it.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/r_albert_mohler_jr/2008/09/a_tale_of_two_offices.html
I would just like to point out that there are different forms of natural law theory, and not everyone who holds to a form of natural law would support the American Revolution. One person who did hold to natural law theory was John Calvin, and the article written by professor Frazer (Pastors: Get on the Spiritual Battlefield) demonstrates the nonrevolutionary mind of Calvin.
I know I’m opining quite late, but I just wanted to make sure people did not get a bad idea about natural law.