Biblical Principles that Affect the Christian Citizen
“The Principle of Active Involvement”
Rom. 13:1-7
This morning we are going to continue with our series on the role of the follower of Christ in the political process. The last time we looked at this we considered the principle of righteous rulers. We were focusing on the truth expressed in Prov. 28:12 – “When the righteous triumph, there is great glory, but when the wicked rise, men hide themselves.” Or as it is expressed in 28:16, “A leader who is a great oppressor lacks understanding, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.” The principle involved here is that when ethical, just, fair, honest men of integrity come to power, good things happen. The populace rejoices. But when unethical, unfair, unjust, deceitful, selfish men come to power, the people under them suffer. This is one of the principles that God has built into His universe. Our founding fathers referred to these principles as natural law. The point for us was that we are privileged in our country to have a say in who rules us. So we need to be educated and involved in the political process and do our part to have righteous rulers.
The principle I want us to consider this morning is active involvement. To help us get going with this, I want to put the principle to you in the form of a question. “What level of involvement should the gathered church have in the affairs of the state?” And make sure you understand the significance of th e term “gathered church.” I‟m not speaking today of “the church” in the sense of individual believers, but “the church gathered,” a group of followers of Christ. There is a big difference in the two concepts. Right now, we are “the gathered church,” but when we leave this building later, “the church” will be disbursing. So the question is, “What level of involvement should the gathered church have in the affairs of the state?”
As we think about this, I want you to know that if I had asked this question 200 years ago, or probably even 100 years ago, both “the gathered church” and political leaders in general would have answer very differently from what would be expressed this morning. Over the last 100 years there has been an evolution of thought concerning this matter about the level of involvement the church should have in the affairs of the state. We‟ll discuss how that happened later in this message, but for now I want us to consider two points. First of all, we are going toanswer this question from a biblical perspective. Then we are going to consider it from a historical perspective.
I. Biblical Perspective
A. Rom. 13:1-7 “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities (when Paul was writing this – around A.D. 58 – who was his „governing authority‟?). For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience ' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
We are starting with this passage because it sets the stage for the entire question. If you want to know how involved we should be in the affairs of the state, Paul lays out for us four important points. 1) Government has its origin with God – v. 1, 4, and 6. This is huge. As we are going to see in the next passage, the state has a very broad realm and a lot of power, but we must never forget that the state derives its authority from and has its origins in God. As much as I admire Abraham Lincoln, he was inaccurate when he finished the Gettysburg Address by making reference to a government “of the people (source), by (personnel) the people, and for (purpose) the people.” 2) Resisting the state is a serious breach – it is tantamount to resisting God himself and will bring punishment on the violator – v. 2. The word translated as “resists” means to set oneself against, to withstand, or oppose. We do this at great personal risk. When Herod and Nero were on the throne, the N.T. authors never encouraged people to go underground and joint the resistance. 3) The state is commissioned by God to punish evil and reward good – vv. 3-4. This is why it behooves us to be good, law abiding citizens. 4) There are two motives for being in submission to our Government – fear and love – v. 5. Fear of punishment by the state and love for God as a follower of Christ.
This is our foundational passage for answering the question of how involved we should be, and what I want you to take from this passage of scripture is that the things of God and the things of state are very intermingled! This is why for hundreds of years the European model has been that the head of the state was also the head of the church. Who is the head of the church of England? The Queen! The Archbishop of Canterbury is the religious head of the church, but the Queen is the “Supreme Governor of the Church of England.”
So, if the biblical teaching is that the church and the state are so closely related that resisting the church is tantamount to resisting God, why did our Baptistic forefathers endure martyrdom for holding to a separation between the church and state? Why do we have in America this concept of separation between the church and state? It‟s because of the teaching in Mt. 22.
B. Matt. 22:15-22 “Then the Pharisees went and counseled together how they might trap Him in what He said. 16 And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. 17 "Tell us therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?" 18 But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? 19 "Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. 20 And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." 22 And hearing this, they marveled, and leaving Him, they went away.
What bearing does this passage have on the question at hand (what level of involvement should the gathered church have in the affairs of the state)? Note these several points. 1) As followers of Christ, we exist in two clearly delineated spheres – God and state. Certain things are in God‟s realm, and certain things are in the state‟s realm. While these two spheres overlap in some areas (our first point), there are other areas where they don‟t overlap. God is God, and the state is not! And what this means is that any time the state encroaches on God, we side with God. This is a vital, critical distinction. 2) There is no incompatibility between giving your money to a godless state and maintaining your right relationship with God. I point this out because there is the thought in the church that since our state uses our taxes for godless enterprises, we shouldn‟t pay our taxes because that makes us participants in their wickedness. That isn‟t true according to this passage because Jesus said to give to Caesar what belonged to him, and if you think our government is corrupt, compare it to Herod‟s and Caesar‟s!
What this passage tells us about the question at hand is that even though church and state are very intertwined (as we saw from the last passage), there are very clearly marked boundaries between these two entities. If you want to know how this works in practical terms, read the story in Acts 5 about when the state ordered Peter and the Apostles to stop preaching.
C. 1 Tim. 2:1-4 “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
This passage teaches us several things. 1) The church is commanded to pray for its governmental leaders. One of the things that really bugged me about the Bush presidency is that as soon as he was elected, a national Presidential Prayer Team was assembled to pray for him every day. When somebody placed the fliers advertising this in the church foyer, I started asking people, “Where was this Presidential Prayer Team for the last 8 years when Clinton was our President?” The command is to pray for your governmental leaders, not to pray for the governmental leaders you happen to agree with. 2) There is a direct connection between obedience to this principle and my quality of life. Do you see that? Paul tells Timothy that we should pray for those in authority over us so that we can “lead a quiet and tranquil life.” Quietness and tranquility in the social realm are very conducive to godliness and dignity.
What this passage tells us about our topic is that there is a correlation between the amount of involvement we have in government and the kind of lives we get to lead. I believe that the more proactive the church is in being involved in the affairs of state, the more freedoms and prosperity we can enjoy. We can prove this historically. There is a reason why America exploded with freedom, technology, and wealth in its first 200 years of existence, and it is tied to the involvement of the church in the affairs of the state!
D. Matt. 5:38-41 “You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 "And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two.
Now at first glance, these verses may seem like they don‟t have any bearing on the question at hand, but if we look at it a little deeper we‟ll see the relevance. The general point Jesus is making is that we need to maintain an attitude of love toward our enemies instead of an attitude of vengeance or retaliation. The “eye for an eye” “tooth for a tooth” concept, even though its origins were in the Mosaic Law, by the time it got to Jesus‟ day, was a perversion of the limits God had built into the Mosaic Law. The purpose behind lex talionis (law of retaliation) was to discourage private retaliation and let public justice rule. Its purpose was not to establish some kind of tit-for-tat justice system.
The teaching of Jesus is that we demonstrate love for our enemies by repaying their evil with good as Paul tells us to do in Romans 12, not insisting on the OT standard of the eye for an eye. And then, to illustrate what this new standard looks like, Jesus give three illustrations of what this concept looks like in real life – in physical assault (v. 39), in judicial assault (v. 40), and in political oppression (v. 41). In the days of Jesus, military personnel had the authority to make any civilian drop what he was doing and carry the soldier‟s load for one mile. This was something the Romans adopted from the Babylonians and Persians as well – forced conscription of civilian labor or animals. And I want you to put yourself in the sandals of these Jewish people who were living under the occupying force of the despised Roman army.
Here you are working in your field, minding your own business, and a Roman soldier comes along, yanks you out of your field, and makes you carry his pack for a mile. You know you have just lost at least an hour of your day, maybe more, and you are assisting a hated symbol of your oppressive, foreign government. He knows you despise him, just like all the previous Jewish men he has made to carry his pack, and when you get to the end of the mile, instead of dropping his pack and turning around to go back, you say, “Would you mind if I carried your pack another mile?” How do you suppose he will react?
After he picks his jaw up off the ground, I can envision him saying something like, “A couple of days ago another guy did this, and he said he was a follower of Christ. Are you one of those followers of Christ as well?” And there is the opportunity to tell him about the difference Christ has made in your life as you spend the next half hour with him carrying his pack another mile.
The reason I‟m drawing our attention to this passage is because the difference that being a follower of Christ makes on us should have a profound impact on our involvement in the affairs of state. Peter makes the very same point in his first letter. Christians should be the best citizens! In fact, a constitutional republic, like ours, can‟t operate if it isn‟t fueled by moral people! This is something we‟ll look at next week, but certain types of governments work only when godliness is prevalent.
So to summarize what we have looked at this morning, we are considering the principle of active involvement. The question that helps us see this best is, “What level of involvement should the church have in the affairs of the state?” And the answer we see from the biblical record is that as followers of Christ, the church should have a very high level of involvement. It is natural and normal for us to do this, and what we are going to see next week is that historically, our founding fathers held tenaciously to these truths:
1. Government is ordained of God.
2. The church and the state have clearly delineated roles.
3. There is a direct connection between our quality of life and our political involvement.
4. Our relationship with Christ compels us to high level of involvement.
Biblical Principles that Affect the Christian Citizen
“The Principle of Active Involvement” – Part 2
Mt. 22:29
This morning we are going to finish the message I started last week when I was sharing with you the principle of active involvement. We are in a series of messages where I am answering the question, “What is the role of the follower of Christ in the political process?” And as we saw last week, government is ordained of God (Rom. 13), the church and the state are considerably intertwined yet they have clearly delineated roles (Mt. 22), there is a direct connection between our quality of life and our political involvement (1 Tim.2), and finally that our relationship with Christ compels us to higher level of involvement (Mt. 5). That is the biblical perspective that should motivate us to a high level of involvement in the affairs of the state.
I told you in the introduction last week that we‟d be looking at this matter of active involvement from two different perspectives – the biblical perspective and the historical perspective. Last week‟s message was the biblical part, so this morning we are going to look at the historical part. I want us to start by looking at this passage in Mt. 22:29. The Bible has a lot to say about the connection between ignorance and consequence. Ignorance can get you into trouble very quickly.
It pays to be educated (and I‟m not talking about formal education here), and in Mt. 22:29 Jesus condemns the Pharisees by saying, “you are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures.” In other words, their ignorance of the scriptures led to serious consequences concerning issues of eternal importance. We see another example of this connection between ignorance and consequence in Hosea 4:6. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Do you see the connection between ignorance and consequence?
Now, as we think about this matter of how involved we should be in the political process, there is a particular piece of ignorance, or we could call it a lack of knowledge, that is prevalent in our country and even in Christian circles that I want to clear up for us this morning. It has to do with the misconception about the “separation of church and state.” How many of you have ever heard that phrase used in connection with morality being kept out of civic matters? In other words, you can‟t pray in school because of “the separation of church and state.” You can‟t have
a copy of the 10 commandments on government property because of “the separation of church and state.” You can‟t have a nativity scene on the public library lawn because of “the separation of church and state.” We could go on ad infinitum ad nauseum. Most people base this thinking on the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”
Here is something I want you to understand with great clarity. This phrase, “the separation of church and state” is not found in one single governing document of the United States! Most Americans believe that it is actually taken from our constitution. Listen to this very sad conversation between David Barton and a U.S. Congressman who was an accomplished attorney. They were discussing the importance of basic religious values in society, and the Congressman said, “We know these values are important; it‟s unfortunate that we can‟t do anything to promote them.” Surprised, Dave Barton queried, “Why not?” He replied, “We just can‟t.” Barton persisted, “Why not?” The Congressman answered, “Because of „separation of church and state.‟” Barton responded, “Separation of church and state? What about it?” He replied, “It‟s in the Constitution – the Constitution won‟t permit us to have religious values in public arenas.” Barton said, “That phrase is not in the Constitution!” Forcefully, the Congressman countered, “Yes it is!” “No it isn‟t!” “Yes it is!” They went back and forth until Barton produced a copy of the Constitution and asked, “Would you please find that phrase for me?” He replied triumphantly, “I‟d be happy to.” He immediately went to the First Amendment, read it – and became very embarrassed. He said, “I can‟t believe this! In law school they always taught us that‟s what the First Amendment said!” Amazed, Barton said, “You‟ve never read the Constitution for yourself?” He replied, “We were never required to read it in law school.”
This is a pretty sad commentary on our law schools, and I‟m afraid that this particular Congressman who had never read the Constitution is not an exception to the rule. And to help us out here at Cornerstone, there are copies of the Constitution on the information table in the foyer. Get one, read it, and be familiar with it. The words “separation,” “church,” and “state” are not found in the Constitution, or the First Amendment, or any other official document pertinent to the founding of our Country.
So where does this phrase come from? As I shared with you last Sunday, our 16th century Anabaptist forefathers had a very clear understanding of the Scriptures we appealed to last week. They understood with great clarity that even though God and State were closely connected and even intertwined to a great degree, there was a very clear boundary that the state could not step over. These Anabaptist paid very dearly for their insistence on this matter because their actions and beliefs were considered treason. Yet this insistence has marked Baptist thought for the last 500 years, which is why on Oct. 7, 1801, The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, CT, sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson expressing their concern about this matter. The essence of their concern was this. They felt that freedom of religion was an inalienable right, it had been given to them by God, not granted to them by the state. And there is a big difference between those two concepts. They were concerned that since freedom of religion was mentioned in the First Amendment of the Constitution (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”), that people would erroneously conclude that it was a freedom granted by the Constitution and not God.
Jefferson replied to this letter on Jan. 1, 1802 and said, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, . . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should „make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,‟ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
This phrase, “a wall of separation between Church and State” is a phrase taken from Thomas Jefferson‟s personal correspondence to a group of Baptist pastors, not some kind of official statement. But even if it were an official statement, even if it were in the Constitution, what would Jefferson be saying? He would be saying that the U.S. Government has no right to establish a religion for the entire nation – like the church of England, or the church of Scotland, etc. He would not be saying, nor does the First Amendment advocate that religious matters have no place in government.
So what has happened over the last 100 years is that there has been an evolution of thought in our country. Fueled by an activist Supreme Court, public opinion has swung from “government not being able to establish a national religion,” to “government not permitting religious expression in the civic arena.” As Dave Barton says, “The result is that the First Amendment is now used to prohibit the very religious activities that the Founders themselves once encouraged under the same Amendment.” Not only is this a sad commentary on our nation, it is also a sad commentary on the church because by and large, the church has bought into this thinking which is completely against each of the principles of active involvement.
Let‟s take a few minutes now and look at some historical illustrations of how actively involved the church was in the political process in the early days of our country. I want to do this two ways. First of all, we are going to look at some testimonies from our founding fathers, and then I will show you an example of exactly how integrated church and state was in the early days of our country.
II. Historical Perspective
A. Testimony of the founding fathers
1. John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June28, 1813 said, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were . . . the general principles of Christianity.” Works, Vol. X p. 45
2. On Oct. 11, 1789,John Adams in a speech to a group of officers in the Massachusetts Militia said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Works, Vol. IX p. 229
3. Robert Winthrop, a Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1840‟s said, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them, either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
4. In George Washington‟s Farewell Address, he said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.”
5. On the very first day after George Washington became the commander in chief of the American forces in the Revolutionary war, he issued this order: “The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for the government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness. And in like manner he requires and expects of all officers and soldiers, not engaged in actual duty, a punctual attendance on Divine service, to implore the blessing of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.”
B. Example of churches meeting in court houses
For Americans today, the idea of a church being able to use a tax-supported governmental building for their worship services sound unbelievable, since we have heard so much about this “wall of separation between church and state.” But in the minds of our founding fathers, there was no objection to this idea. Understanding the importance of morality to a stable society, they encouraged it!
Listen to this testimony from Thomas Jefferson concerning the town of Charlottesville, VA. “In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, joining in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others‟ preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony.”
I believe we have seen with great clarity, from both a biblical and an historical perspective, that Christians should have a high level of involvement in the political process. Our nation became what it did because of the level of involvement of Christians, and we have become what we are today because of the level of involvement of Christians as well! It is high time for followers of Christ to reengage the political process and wield its influence.
Alexis de Tocqueville was a French jurist who visited the US in 1831, and he was so impressed with what he saw that he went home and wrote one of the best studies of
American culture and Constitutional system that had been published up to that point. His book was called Democracy in America, and listen to his first impression of our country in the early 1800‟s. “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.” That is what I have been trying to say for these last two weeks. It is the principle of active involvement. He goes on to say, “Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions . . . . I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion – for who can search the human heart? – but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.”
In Ps. 33:12 we read the truth that “blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” That should serve as a motivation for us to not only be godly but also to seek to exert a godly influence in our culture. But it is also a warning that if America does not stay blessed, it will be because we did not stay involved! De Tocqueville‟s most famous statement serves as a very appropriate parting thought: “I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
