Comment Here

Christians and the State

February 16, 2010 Radio

Can we talk? Once in a while, someone takes me to task for meddling in politics. Christians, they think, should stay out of politics. I have had a couple this month chiding me for not sticking to salvation and personal piety.

•    “Religion and politics shouldn’t be mixed.”

•    Some cite things like separation of church and state, and all that.

I agree that separation of church and state is a wise thing. I am not so sure that separation of religious faith and state is quite so smart. Nor am I so sure that the state should be immune from criticism from Christian commentators. The Constitution is quite specific on this issue, narrowly defining a restriction, not on religion or church, not on Christians or Jews, but upon government.

•    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t know if many people notice this, but it is entirely pointed at Congress, and by implication, at the courts.

•    There is nothing in the Constitution that should in any way inhibit Christians from criticizing the government on the basis of Christian morality.

•    So from the government side of the equation, they have no basis for inhibiting criticism from a Christian point of view.

•    They can take it or leave it, but they can’t shut it up.

But what about the other side of the equation? Should the Christian involve himself in politics? Should he engage in criticism or support of the government on biblical principles?

•    What exactly is politics? A. The art or science of government; b: The art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy.

•    Why should anyone assume that religious faith is somehow barred from guiding or influencing governmental policy?

•    Why should the influencing of governmental policy be relegated to only the godless?

Nancy Pearsey, in her book, Total Truth, had some important words on this:

The great historian of religion Martin Marty once said every religion serves two functions: first it is a message of personal salvation telling us how to get right with God; and second, it is a lens for interpreting the world. Historically, evangelicals have been very good at the first function—at "saving souls." But they have not been nearly as good at helping people to interpret the world around them—at providing a set of interrelated concepts that function as a lens to give a Biblical view of the areas like science, politics, economics, or bioethics.

As Marty puts it, evangelicals have typically “accented personal piety and individual salvation, leaving them to their own devices to interpret the world around them.” In fact many no longer think it's even the function of Christianity to provide an interpretation of the world. Marty calls this the Modern Schism, and he says “we are living in the first time in history where Christianity has been boxed into the private sphere and has largely stopped speaking to the public sphere.”

•    Is that true?

•    Is this how we have found ourselves with 50 million missing American citizens who were aborted before they had a chance to make their mark on the world?

•    Is it because too many Christians felt that somehow it wasn’t their job to speak to the morality of the issues?

•    Mind you, this isn’t just about Christian preachers. It is about all of us.

Nancy Pearcey has a chapter in her book titled: “When America met Christianity—Guess Who Won?”

•    What she concluded was that the new national ethos had more effect on Christianity than Christianity had on the nation.

•    An example? How about one of the large, old, mainstream denominations ordaining a practicing homosexual as a bishop.

•    This is the social norm, not the Christian norm. Mind you, this is a man who left a wife and children to live with another man.

•    Had he done that to live with another woman, could he have been ordained?

•    Well, maybe he would have, but only because society wants it, in the name of diversity.

Logically, it makes no sense that we who follow Jesus should stay out of the public square.

•    The Constitution not only does not require it, but demands that we be allowed to speak.

•    But maybe there is a biblical reason why we should shut up about such things?

Well, you may have heard of a man named John the Baptist.

•    As Jesus’ ministry was beginning to take off, John had been jailed. Why?

•    Well, as Matthew told the story: For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

•    What business did John have in criticizing Herod’s private life?

•    Note, he isn’t merely criticizing Herod’s governing policy, but his personal life.

•    What is the basis for that?

•    It is an indication of character, example, and leadership—surely matters of qualification for public office.

•    John flew in the face of convention, spoke truth to power, and went to jail for it.

•    The story has long been told, his head was delivered on a platter to Herod’s stepdaughter.

•    Note well, John engaged in no violence. He just used words to criticize conduct. Jesus said, “among those born of women, there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist.”

•    I consider this endorsement of John as an endorsement of John’s actions.

•    John had done nothing wrong. He had done his duty.

The governance of Judea in those days was somewhat layered.

•    Judea was occupied by Roman forces, but the Jews still governed locally.

•    This was plain enough in the arrest, trial, and condemnation of Jesus, if no other.

•    The Romans were not much of an issue, because their sole concern was maintaining order according to Roman law, and collecting taxes.

•    The larger world was enjoying what is sometimes called a Pax Romana, a Roman Peace.

•    Paul describes the relationship of a Christian to Rome, in the letter to the Roman Christians —see Romans 13.

But Jesus was often at odds and quite critical of the establishment in Judea—the indigenous governors of the Jewish people in Judea.

•    So we really can’t turn to the New Testament for an excuse for not publicly and vigorously opposing immorality in our own government.

•    Jesus did so and endorsed John, who did the same.

There are those in the opposition who make a pretense at being concerned that some Christians want to establish a theocracy here.

•    I say a pretense, because they know better.

•    In point of fact, the world has only known a theocracy once, as far as I can see.

•    There have been religious hierachies headed by men and those were to be feared.

•    A true theocracy is one where God is ruler, not this or that priest.

•    The one theocracy the world has known was in the period of the Judges in Israelite history, the time between the conquest of the land of Israel and the establishing of the monarchy, and described in the Book of Judges.

The Israelites enjoyed the freest society man has ever known—a fact not generally noticed.

•    God was king, and under God, the people were self governing.

•    Tribal elders, judges, and magistrates handled the limited roles of governing.

•    They had a constitution based on the Ten Commandments, and the Law of Moses.

•    It was utterly simple, completely fair and totally just.

•    It left the people maximum freedom to grow crops and families and build a just society.

Why did they decide to forsake all this freedom and ask for a human king?

•    It was nothing complicated. In two words, it was fear and laziness.

•    When they asked for a king, God told Samuel to give them a king, but to first tell them what life would be like for them.

•    If you would like to read this story, Just start in 1 Samuel, chapter 8, and read forward. It’s all there.

•    And in fact, many things we now experience in government are described there.

The history of Israel up to this time was a sequence of prosperity, then forgetting God, being oppressed by enemies, calling out to God, being delivered, rebuilding prosperity, and then starting the cycle all over again.

In the years that followed, Israel was governed by a series of kings, some good, some bad, some worse than bad.

•    And there also followed a series of prophets, whose job it was to criticize the government and the morals of the people.

•    Why anyone should expect it to be otherwise is beyond me.

The archetype of all prophets was a hairy man named Elijah, who customarily wore leather.

•    He was a kind of Hell’s Angel to Ahab and Israel.

•    He didn’t say a lot, but he punctuated what he said with a three and half year drought.

•    Did he criticize the government? Oh yes. He had a long running verbal battle with a king named Ahab.

•    Ahab had the misfortune of being caught in a bind between his wife Jezebel on one side and Elijah on the other.

•    He was afraid of both of them, and found himself in an unenviable situation.

Ahab and Jezebel arranged judicial murder of man for the trivial reason that Ahab wanted the man’s vineyard and the man wouldn’t sell it to him. It had been in his family forever. So, Jezebel decided to give Ahab a valentine and had the man accused of blasphemy and stoned to death. She then told Ahab to get up and go take the land. (Ahab had gone to bed pouting and refused to eat.)

About this time, the Word of the Lord came to Elijah:

{18} Go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who rules in Samaria. He is now in Naboth's vineyard, where he has gone to take possession of it. {19} Say to him, “This is what the LORD says: Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?” Then say to him, “This is what the LORD says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth's blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!”

So Elijah went, not with a message of salvation for a wicked sinner, but with a clear denunciation of what Ahab had done. For although Jezebel arranged the murder, he was responsible.

As Elijah approached Ahab, Ahab said to Elijah,

So you have found me, my enemy! “I have found you,” he answered, “because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD. {21} I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel —slave or free.”

So, Old Testament or New Testament, men of God criticized governors freely. It was their duty, even though it made a lot of people uncomfortable.

The governors of Judea in the early days of Christianity did their best to silence the Christians. There is a sequence of events in Acts 5 that illustrates this.

(Acts 5:12-33 NIV) The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon's Colonnade. {13} No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. {14} Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. {15} As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter's shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. {16} Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed.

•    It’s easy to realize that the crowds became tumultuous, and worrisome to the establishment.

{17} Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. {18} They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail.

•    It didn’t work.

{19} But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. {20} “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people the full message of this new life.” {21} At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.

•    Later in the day, when the full assembly of elders had assembled, they sent to the jail for the apostles to be brought before them.

{22} But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, {23} “We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.”

{24} On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this. {25} Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.”

{26} At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them. {27} Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. {28} “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.”

{29} Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! {30} The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. {31} God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. {32} We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” {33} When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death.

•    It is only right that we respect authority, but we have to speak the word.

(Jeremiah 23:28-31 NIV) “Let the prophet who has a dream tell his dream, but let the one who has my word speak it faithfully. For what has straw to do with grain?” declares the LORD. {29} “Is not my word like fire,” declares the LORD, “and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces? {30} Therefore,” declares the LORD, “I am against the prophets who steal from one another words supposedly from me. {31} Yes,” declares the LORD, “I am against the prophets who wag their own tongues and yet declare,” the LORD declares.

•    Again and again, the prophets found themselves, not only prosecuted by the government, but persecuted by prophets who had sold out to the state.

Jeremiah was a thorn in the side of the establishment.

•    Oh, but that is Old Testament.

•    Well, what is the fundamental difference between the world of Jeremiah and the world of Paul?

•    The government for Jeremiah was the king, princes, priests, and judges.

•    The government for Paul was Rome. There was little or nothing Paul could say to Rome, but it was the local rulers who would have killed him if they could.

•    He only saved himself from them by declaring himself a Roman citizen and appealing to Caesar.

Which governmental style in the Bible is closest to our own?

•    Israel in the time of the judges.

•    Next, Israel in the time of the monarchy.

Why would anyone argue that Christians, teachers or preachers, should stay out of guiding or influencing governmental philosophy?

•    Perhaps, as we have allowed ourselves to be boxed out, we share some of the blame for the moral landslide taking place around us.

I’m not trying to start a movement. Just to help Christian folk realize that we are people, and this is a government of the people and by the people.

Therefore, God is going to hold Christian people responsible for the failures of governance of this country.

And any attempt to shut up Christians or inhibit our expression is a violation of our First Amendment rights.

•    There is one important, but overlooked, right that all Americans have: Everyone has the right not to listen. Just as we have the right to speak.

Nancy Pearsey argues that, in evangelism, our task is to bring people face to face with the contradiction between what a person says he believes and what his whole life is telling him. The Gospel then becomes good news indeed: The doctrine that we are created in the image of God gives a solid foundation for human freedom and moral significance.

“We have to insist on presenting Christianity as a comprehensive, unified worldview that addresses all of life and reality. It is not just religious truth, but total truth.”

I could say that I am sorry to have made some listeners uncomfortable by criticizing our government. But that would be dishonest. I am not sorry in the least.

•    Sometimes we have to be made uncomfortable to see the truth.

•    We don’t need a new version of the moral majority of years past.

•    We just need all Christians folk, everywhere, to live and proclaim the Truth in every facet of life, including the way we are governed.

•    Because in truth, it is the Christian Faith that stands as the last bulwark of freedom in our world.

•    Now, go out there and do your duty.

Contact us              Copyright 2009 Ronald L Dart, all rights reserved.