;)
Church and State: Confusion Reigns When Roles Combine 1
Posted by Rob Ayers in News & Culture
Perhaps this post will garner some discussion. I hope so. To put any amount of grey matter into a topic that is commented by no one (with the exception of Geoff) is a bit of an ego deflator. Not that my ego is worst the wear for such lack of attention – it’s just that a little stroke now and again is helpful for good morale.
Well, perhaps, possibly, hopefully this one will garner some attention. I start now by deflating some of your egos by stating the obvious (or should be obvious to those who observe carefully): The separation of church and state is not a man made political device – it was and is God ordained for an express purpose. In the same breath to remove the influence of the church and her believers from the debate of the public square is counterproductive leading to the tyranny of government. There is a reason each co-exist as equals in the world each with defined roles prescribed by Scripture.
There are distinct dualities that now exist in the universe which God created. “Hot v. Cold” “Left v. Right” “Positive v. Negative” and the list is endless. While seemingly contradictory, these dualisms are both opposite as well as supportive to its transverse other in fundamental ways. Most pointedly, without one, the other would not exist, and vice versa. The duality defined would have no relative counterpart to make a definitiion available to it – it’s extreme would only exist, more than likely leading to “non-existence” in all things, not just one. Now that may be a little deep for some, but I often spend my days in such conjecture of comparing “what if’s” to “how comes.” This is probably why some of my church members and philosophy students find me a little obtuse.
The same with the seeming dualism of Grace v. Justice. On the offset, they seem contradictory. And yet this dualism is seen written in the pages of Scripture as not contradictory, but complimentary. It is the stated position of the Father who is both the avenger of justice as well as the well spring of grace, love, and mercy. He administers justice with grace, and provides grace with justice. He is the only being in the universe who is able to keep that duality in equal measure without contradiction – all other dispensers of this duality are kept serenely and by design distinct and separate. God is the only being who is able to control His passions of love and vengeance in a just and true manner. All other dispensers are separated like two poles in a battery with positive and negative energy. The just use of both, like in a battery, will enable all things to work well. One over the other in any way will cause a dysfunction with deleterious results for all.
I will take this up further in another post – time escapes me at the present to fully flesh this out for you. Let me suggest a couple of examples in this post of what I am talking about, and get your response to it. These examples may garner some discussion. From the onset I truly mean to be consistent in my thoughts. So, if you find me inconsistent, or just plain wrong fell free to expound. I will complete out a full Scriptural rendition of this particular duality that is seen in God, yet separate in His creation (on purpose I believe). I will give you here some of the roles that are currently “in flux” between church and state that threaten the smooth operation of each. Encroachment upon the other from the other would be seen as deleterious and thus impeding the functioning of the other in it’s role determined by God and Scripture:
Role of Government – Minister of law and the tool of vengeance upon law breakers
Role of the Church – Minister of grace and mercy to sinners
Role of Government – Arbiter of “fair play” – works on the principle of “what is best for the majority of all people.” This includes the viability of the economic system, which is wholly determined by the stability of the government within it’s borders (often determined by “type” i.e. republic, democracy, communism, socialism, etc.)
Role of the Church – Works on the principle of “what is good and right” in how one can live in the world at peace with all humanity. Has no borders or constraints in terms of operating principles besides those given to her by the head of the church.
Role of Government – Best suited when operating principles are kept to the identifiable minimum – Protection of people within it’s jurisdiction from harming themselves within the borders and protection from attacks outside of it’s borders. Taxes are best utilized for these issues and connected issues for this common purpose.
Role of the Church – To give grace to those who have been lead to search for it. To be an instrument of God’s peace for all of humanity to embrace. To be the leader of spiritual leadership as well as charitable work toward the poor, the imprisoned, and the needy.
How have these purposes been confused? I can name a few things here (and I will) with the understanding of all that I have not connected it yet with the totality of my treatise. Here are two examples where confusion reigns a plenty with the boundaries of both church and state:
1. Government(s) intrusion into eliminating poverty. With the best of intentions, government(s), often at the urging of concerned believers, have attempted to eliminate poverty, subverting the role of the church to be the dispenser(s) of grace. It could be argued that the church often has done little to share grace with the poor, thus forcing government intervention. Yet government(s) are tasked with justice and vengeance, not grace. Thus government(s) intervention with poverty programs has been anything but graceful. Programs whose purpose was to eliminate poverty has only subverted multiple generations into keeping them in poverty. The church coffers have an unlimited supply – by faith, our Lord owns the cattle of 1000 hills. Government tills are finite – they are only filled at the expense of unwilling taxpayers who give often at the point of the sword. The absolute futility of the government system has exploded into a deep animosity toward the poor by taxpayers who gripe that often the needy are “getting something for nothing.”
2. The Church’s intrusion into the Justice system. From Churches offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants, ecclesiastical bodies lobbying governments both for and against the death penalty, the church intrudes upon Governments one scriptural injunction in keeping the peace. Laws are merely empty promises and pieces of paper without true enforcement. The government ministry in being God’s hand of vengeance is empty if it is not allowed to fulfill it’s role. While churches have the voice to plead for mercy (the churches role) it is necessary to stay out the way of lawbreakers whom the government is lifting it’s sword against, unless one wants the sword to come crashing down on themselves. The exception here is if the law is “truly unjust” such as was the case when the Nazis were exporting Jews for extermination. If the law is just, it protects citizens whom the government is duty bound to protect, then the church should be mindful of it’s position and play it’s role. This dualism can be seen possibly in an execution where the accused admits his/her sins, asks forgiveness of the family and society, thanks God for His grace and mercy in giving Him a Savior who has redeemed him, and then submits to the penalty that the law allows.
Comments?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Rob,
Okay. You want feedback? You got it…
I have always had a bit of a difficulty identifying with much certainty any biblical “role” of secular government. The models we have of government in the Bible that I can think of are:
1. Theocratic OT Israel
2. The Roman Empire
3. “Foreign” governments, such as that of Egypt, Babylon, pagan nations surrounding Israel, etc.
I don’t think any of these are really a good model for us to follow in the context of a modern democratic nation-state. As a matter of fact, during Bible times, as far as I am aware, there was no counterpart to the modern nation-state.
We do have the injunctions regarding our obligation, as Christians, to submit to civil authorities, such as Romans 13:1-7. But, beyond this, I have a hard time coming up with Scripture that can properly be interpreted as to instructing modern governments what their role should be.
Thus, to state, for example, that government is being “intrusive,” from a biblical point of view, when it seeks to eliminate poverty, or that the role of government is to protect the borders of the geographic area defined by the nation-state, is a bit anachronistic and eisegetical, as I see it.
Just a quick thought: I think we now have a third player – the CORPORATION. It works beyond the realm of governments, often using them as pawns, is usually the source of injustice and exploitation, has mesmerized the church into buying their products without question. The excellent book, “Colossians Remixed” suggest that our “Roman Empire” today is the Corporation, whose image like Caesar’s is everywhere.
Blessings,
db
David,
I think you are confusing government “type” versus government “roles.” There have been varying “types” from despots, monarchies, republics, democracies, socialist states that have evolved over time. Each has a “governing” philosophy that is it’s basis, biblically “good” or “bad” – note the moral descriptions of the various Kings in Chronicles or I and II Kings in example. Often the “type” centers around strength/weaknesses such as economics, order v. chaos (continuum), expansion (destiny), etc. The “Type” has nothing to do with the premise however – the Scriptural “roles” of those governments are all the same – based, among other things Romans 13. Modernity has nothing to do with the matter – besides “there is nothing new under the sun.” While we may have found a different way to govern than our ancestors did, have the “roles” suddenly changed in the providence of God?
In respect to the OT Theocracy – if you really want to argue this – the question becomes “if God were leading and governing a human government how would He do it – what would He demand?” The answer is found in the Torah. In summary – By swift and non-ceasing justice and vengeance. The model of government that God uses to break the backs of perpetual evil doers to allow most to live in peace is found there. Many do not like that model – it is too vengeful and unyielding – not enough grace. The “role” is clear enough – and coincides with Paul’s affirmation in Romans 13.
As to your concern about government’s attempt to eliminate poverty – going in an opposing and opposite fashion from my first argument, I would question the practice from a pragmatic point of view. I would ask the question, “Does it work?” Is there any evidence that tells us that government intervention in poverty has eliminated poverty? Is it just merely a matter of “getting it right?” I will gently respond with the evidence of a several trillion dollar experiment in our own land – NO.
Poverty sometimes is a symptom of a spiritual condition. Many a time I have seen the work of the Gospel of Jesus Christ take a family in poverty, turn it around to where now they are productive citizens in both a Heavenly Kingdom and and earthly one to the glory of God. Government is unable to help that person in their one true need. The church is able to because that is their role in the world – a harbinger of grace that seeks to eliminate the poverty of the soul and the body one person, one family at a time.
As to your last paragraph I will state a question “In extreme.” Is it your position that you are a proponent of “open borders” and even a “one world government?” That would be the anti-anachronistic position.
Rob
Ahh … those evil corporations … producing goods, providing services, creating jobs. Ghastly.
David,
Some Corporations are powerful. Are they any less or more “evil” or “good” than human government? Of course the one type of government that seeks to eliminate corporations as evil is Communism – of course communism has it’s own problems having a philosophy that is atheistic in it’s premise.
Most “corporations” are merely businesses who attempt to support their investors (see “stockholders”) by making a profit on the goods and services they provide. In a truly free-market economy they would be attempt to be competitive by competition by other businesses attempting to sell to the same market.
Can Corporations become evil? Are humans evil? Can governments become evil? I think all the answers to these questions are “yes” – and not one are more evil than the other. Yet the free market system within the government which we live has provided an era of prosperity for a great many people. Is it perfect? NO. Is it evenly divided? NO. Yet any system that has attempted to eliminate the inequalities has only perpetuated the inequalities, from the haves to the have nots.
Rob
Geoff,
David
How can a secular government have a Biblical role? Wouldn’t it then, by default, be a Biblically based, or religiously authoritative, government?
We can’t define our government based upon the Bible without the government acquiescing to the authority of the Bible.
For us to attempt to do that, if I understand your writing here, is to impose our view as Christians onto government, which violates what I think you are saying.
I think you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Rob,
I believe that different “types” of government necessarily take on different “roles.” For instance, in a theocracy, it is the legitimate “role” of government to oversee and administer religious practice. In a secular democracy, we have come to the conclusion (and I believe a good one, for our particular situation) that church and state should be separate. However, I have difficulty backing up the view that democracy, and “separation of church and state,” as we know it in America, is the biblical model of government.
Also, I think David Brazzeal’s point (if I understand it correctly) is very apropos. What is the biblical “role” for the corporation? I would argue that there is no biblical “role” for the corporation, per se. There are biblical principles that should govern the behavior of people in corporations. But, the corporation, as an entity, is something to which the Bible does not speak.
I would say that, in many respects, the same holds true to the modern nation-state. There is no ideal type of government, from a biblical point of view. The only ideal government will be when Jesus comes back and sets up His throne. In the meantime, government just is. As believers, we are to have certain attitudes towards government (i.e. Rom. 13, Acts 4:18-20, Matt. 22:16-21, etc.). But I don’t find, in Scripture prescribed attitudes that government is to have towards its citizens, outside of the context of theocracy.
That is not to say that some governments are not more evil or good than others. But, throughout history, some of the most evil governments have been those who claimed divine prerogative and sanction to back up their particular style of governing.
As far as eliminating poverty and open borders are concerned, I am not arguing for any particular position here as over against another. In a separate discussion, I might well do so, but under different premises. The point I am making is that I don’t find a specifically biblical position, one way or another, on these issues, with regard to the role of the modern nation-state.
Bernard,
“How can a secular government have a Biblical role? Wouldn’t it then, by default, be a Biblically based, or religiously authoritative, government?”
No. Read carefully again Romans 13 and the role of government that Paul outlines there. Consider again both the type of government and the philosophical moral premise that existed in that government at the time of Paul’s writing. If you like, review again what I had to say about it here.
Consider this scripture found in Isaiah concerning a pagan King and what the Lord said about him: “who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd,and he shall fulfill all my purpose’;saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’” Isaiah 44:28 ESV. What was the purpose of Cyrus? To send back the people to build the temple and Jerusalem. Did it matter that God used a pagan King to accomplish His purpose? No – it was preordained, despite Cyrus position vis a vis God.
Rob
David,
As I stated, the only being able to both deliver vengeance and grace is God. It is only their that a Theocracy can work if God is on the throne. Anybody else that attempts to “marry” such roles together gets into trouble as you suggested. “Absolute Power corrupts absolutely” in the hands of a being of dust is a maxim that has shown itself time and again throughout the history of humanity.
The worst and most evil form of government in history was not one who claimed divine providence but denied divinity existed at all. Certainly Hitler was no believer, believing himself as divine like giving only mouth service to the Lutheran church as it suited him, and threw clergy in jail or the gallows when it pleased him as well. Of course the aesthetic system of Communism has given us both Stalin and Mao who in their own persons eliminated about 35 million people off the planet in the name of the humanistic god. So no, I do not hold to your premise – certainly some who have claimed “divine right” have ruled in evil ways – but they do not hold a candle to those who denied God and ruled in more evil ways.
I think you are wrong when you claim “no ideal type” of human government. The opposing view was held by a Scottish clergyman Samuel Rutherford in Rex Lex, a contemporary of both Locke and Smith (the founding philosophers whom all three make up the triumvirate of American Democracy). He pretty much argued among my lines here – governments role is to uphold law(s) which ultimately derive from the sovereignty of God. Governments have no foundation save from God despite their “secular” nature. Governments which deny their God ordained roles as harbingers of justice will fall – their foundations are upon “sand” and not “rock.”
Corporations are not “God ordained” institutions, nor or they mentioned in Scripture. They in the scheme of things are irrelevant in this discussion. Ultimately they like everybody else is subject to the Governments that they fall under. The “rule of law” is on the side of government as well as the sword. As the French philosopher Voltaire pointed out, “It is hard to be right when the government is wrong.”
Rob
A discussion. Great! I was beginning to lose faith….
Rob
Rob,
Nothing like a bit of opposition to the premise (or a premise) of the main post to get a comment stream going.
Okay. It looks like we are in agreement concerning theocracy and absolute power. Great.
Also, I will grant that some atheistic governments have often been just as evil, if not more so, as some that claim divine prerogative and sanction. However, I think history does give us warrant to be extremely cautious regarding claims on the part of governments for divine prerogative and sanction. I also think that we are on shaky hermeneutical ground when we try to superimpose values of OT theocracy, or NT empires, onto modern democracy. I am not saying there are no principles or values that apply, but it is, in general, much more complex, than some of those who have tried to make an argument in favor of America being a “godly nation.”
I have not read Rutherford, and relatively little of Locke and Smith. Government, in general, is not one of my main areas of interest, to be honest. That is probably why I had not commented on your other posts up to now.
I am very interested in Scripture, though, and applying what Scripture teaches to the way we live. Not saying that, if you are particulary interested in government, there is anything wrong with that. What I am concerned about, though, is making claims regarding what Scripture teaches that go beyond what it actually teaches.
As I understand it, one of the main supporting passages for your perspective is Romans 13:1-7. As I understand this passage, it is descriptive of government, and prescriptive of our response, as Christians, toward government. But it is not prescriptive as far as the role of government is concerned. I would be open to engaging with your case for the argument to the contrary, though.
Brother David,
I like what you said, “In the meantime, government just is.” That is what I see tending through scripture as well.
Christ said, (John 12:46-47) “I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. (47) “If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
Whatever government structure that exists is…. it exists on the understanding of man, yet Christ was typified, birthed, died and resurrected for a completely different purpose. The consequence of what Christ has done will form a people and a “government” (rule) for eternity. Governments appear now as a mere vapor without a true comparison of what is now or is to come.
2 Timothy 2:11-13 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; (12) If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; (13) If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
Matthew 10:33 “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
It appears to me that there is not so much a dualistic formation between church and state (government) that exists in scripture, but one that extends more closely to life and death. A form of government may be said to be the penultimate consequence of life in Christ with Christ being life itself.
Blessings,
Chris
There are people who call themselves Christians who claim that “seperation of church and state” means that laws can’t be passed forbidding homosexuals to marry or that abortion should be left to the “right” of a woman to “choose”. Both of these positions are completely unscriptural and shameful. While certainly the government has a different role than the church that does not imply that Christians should not stand for Biblical values in this day.
Oh, and it’s called the “establishment clause”, just FYI.
“people who call themselves Christians” have every right to call themselves Christians, if they have been saved by the grace of God, even if you and I strongly disagree with them about abortion and gay marriage. Your tone here is highly antagonistic. Whether or not I think those laws are constitutional has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not my sins are covered by the blood of Christ. I, for instance, am hugely opposed to both abortion and gay marriage, but I am fairly strongly convinced that the United States constitution, as it is written, can very easily be read to protect both of those activities. Whether or not those activities are sinful and shameful or even unscriptural is an entirely different question. To insult my salvation based on how I read the US Constitution is ignorant in the very least and childish to boot.
I did not say “call themselves Christians (but they really aren’t)”. I call myself a Christian. I am. You call yourself a Christian. You say your are. I use the word “say” because I don’t know you. I would expect you would phrase that statement that way if you were talking about me.
As to your assertion that the constitution protects those “rights”, you have the right to your opinion. If, in fact, the constitution did protect these “rights” we as Christians should pray that they law would be changed or that judges would be installed who do not agree with that interpretation.
David,
There are two types of reasoning: inductive and deductive. If the final product is readily available for inspection, we can then take it in any direction, from the point of manufacturer and raw materials to it’s final use. The inspection of the commands of Paul to the Romans are sufficient enough to tell us what the “role” of government is in the world. We can speculate in the matter that “are these all of the roles” and as such that would be speculation and arguing from silence. Paul’s admonitions are prescriptive enough – so much so that the whole fabric of our Judeo-Christian cultural heritage is based upon it.
The first ten chapters of Genesis are “silent” as to human government. Chapter 11 describes the story of the tower of Babel, the first example of organized human “government” which resulted in the fragmentation of the human family into different languages, dispersing them around the world by the hand of God – thus suspending the unification of the world under one government until the end.
Humanity was reminded of the “justice of God” through His demand to the Egyptian monarch to “let my people go” through the plagues and the Passover. The children of Israel in the wilderness were shown what government of God in a depraved world would look like at the foot of Mount Sinai and rejected it.
God, before and since, has allowed (even planned)human governments to rise and fall. They do not “just exist” any more than humanity “just exists.” That is absurd, and is anathema to both the sovereignty of God and His work in the world. As Pilate found out: “So Pilate said to him, ‘You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?’ Jesus answered him, ‘You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.’” John 19:10-11 ESV.
The same inductive reasoning can be applied to the church. We know what the role of the church is. Why then are we bent on allowing government to do that which the church should be doing and in a lot of ways are not doing?
I am sorry my friend. Whenever some argue that the issues are “complex” my “absurdity” alert goes to on and blaring. Issues are only “complex” when folks are unwilling to confront them. “Complex” assumes that the issues in previous days were less “complex” than they are today. I find that argument spacious on it’s face. It assumes that humanity has “progressively” getting better and more complex over time. I see no evidence of this complexity. The tools and knowledge have increased certainly – but humanity has not changed one iota. If so, every government would be advanced, and there would not be one despot ruling in the world.
David, you gave a very casual answer to my question concerning “open borders” and “one world government.” I am processing your response – but feel your casualness about the need for sovereign borders and the rule of law within them, with autonomy of nations to remain “as is” is fairly disconcerting. Christ will rule the nations during His millennial reign “with a rod of iron” (I thought I would throw that in). There will be an attempt to rule the world through the auspices of a one world government – and it will be administered by the “Anti-Christ.”
Rob
BTW, I am not insinuating that Christians should not vote in accordance with biblical moral convictions on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. As individuals, in a democratic system, we have that prerogative, and it seems to me, it is a good idea to take advantage of it as a means for working towards good in society.
But, at the bottom line, as I understand it, our Commission, as Christians, is not to transform society, as much as it is to preach the gospel, which transforms the lives of people within society. As a consequence of this, some positive societal transformation may indeed take place. But, that is not our bottom-line responsibility. It is to make disciples, and build up the Church (capital C – Universal) in numbers, unity and maturity.
David
I totally agree. Vote in accordance with Biblical truth. Go and tell. Yeah, I’m feelin’ that.
Joe and Bernard,
Joe – Individuals have the right to “speak to government” in our culture – irregardless if they are Christian or pagan, “good” or “evil.” Christians in such a government have the duty and obligation to be “salt and light” in their communities and nation. We must remind ourselves that we most always will be in a minority – we are merely “Ambassadors” in a foreign land. I would agree with you that our founders based our current government upon Judeo-Christian values (with the notable exception of the “grand compromise” that allowed slavery in the Southern States – just thought I would throw than in if BDW is hanging around). To cast our hopes on the “salvation of government” is folly. If we are looking to government to change hearts and minds concerning abortion and homosexuality, then that is a pipe dream. That is where the message of the Gospel comes in.
Bernard – love ya bro.
Rob
Rob
I don’t think that the government is going to fix the moral ills of society I do think we as Christians should vote in line with Biblical values. Further, if we have the means to effect change in the law to remove something unbiblical and make it illegal we should do so to the extent that we can. For instance, a few years ago in my state of TN, there was an amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman thereby ensuring that no activist judge could rule homosexual marriages to be legal. I am proud to say that 72% or so voted for that. That would be an example of Christians having an opportunity to have a positive influence on lawmaking. Obviously, our first priority is to share the gospel. Christians should also stand up for Biblical morality and against sin.
Rob –
Joe – Not sure where I want to go with this – I’m on a slightly balky computer but there’s a lot to discuss.
I strongly appreciate your Godly convictions. Rob will shoot me for this, but it really is a complex situation…. 
Absurdity alert…. 
Bernard
To quote the B-52′s
“Roll if you want to”
Joe – That’s the prob – I’m tired and really don’t feel like rolling, no offense
Point 1 – I’m usually pretty faithful to vote as I feel the Bible indicates that people should live. I will vote against abortion. I will vote against gay marriage, if the question is that simple. I will vote against prostitution. I will vote against pornography. Those are my personal beliefs.
Point 2 – In “campaigning” about these issues, we make the church out to be a political entity. I don’t like that. To take the stance that Democrats are going to hell if they don’t get saved is rather out of line, but many churches have that exact mentality.
Point 3 – It is not the duty of the church to impose our moral standards on others around us. Only the power of Christ can change their hearts. Prohibition didn’t work. The war on drugs hasn’t worked. Prostitution is largely illegal but is still rampant. Pornography is not illegal but is regulated and still destroys millions of marriages and homes every year. We are much better served to carry the message of Christ than we are to glory that we voted against alcohol by the drink, or whatever.
Point 4 – We have so much more to offer than a political stance, yet we often reduce the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to being nothing more than a vote on November 7. If we were as adamant about giving the message of deliverance to the sinners who need it as we are about voting them down, my opinion is that we could be much more effective.
Point 5 – Notice that I never said we should be silent. I simply believe that our actions should speak louder than our rhetoric.
Point 6 – I realize this greatly steps outside the direction of the original post. My connection to that post is this – it is not the duty of the government to conform to Christian standards, rules, or preferences. I don’t even know that government as we know it even has a role that is “Biblically defined”. I believe it is our duty as Christians to do our best to spread the gospel of Christ REGARDLESS of the position or nature of the government that we are under, and those of us who are FREE to spread the Gospel have a MUCH greater responsibility to do so. I maintain that American Christians have squandered much of our duty by simply fighting issues rather than actually loving people and desperately trying to steer them into a relationship with Christ. We’d rather vote against the “queers” than lead them to Christ, because they might contaminate our churches…
Point 7 – The moral preferences or beliefs of my government have absolutely no control over my beliefs.
Point 8 – “If my people, which are called by my name” was directed to a Jewish nation that was in total rebellion. It was never spoken to America and, I believe, it is a misapplication to proclaim it as a promise from God to “heal America” if Christians in America will “humble themselves and pray”. The Bible promises that persecution will increase in the end times, that Christians will be killed, that life will, in general, not be good. If we are living in the end times, I believe we have much more of a responsibility to preach that judgment is coming than we do to proclaim that the United States of America will “be healed” and all will be well if only Christians will pray. In India, people are dying for Christ. In China, people are dying for Christ. In America, we’re equating gay marriage to persecution, and I maintain that we don’t have a clue of what we’re talking about. When REAL persecution comes, there will be no voting, no Bibles, and no churches. What will we do then? (And please don’t get all pre-trib on me; if it’s happening in the world today, why do we think the US is immune?) If this verse has such an accurate modern day application, please tell me why the Chinese “land” or the Indian “land” or the Indonesian “land” hasn’t been healed? There are devout Christians there who are willing to give their very lives, but their land and their government is still desperately headed in the wrong direction.
There, we’re rolling
Please understand that I’m not personally attacking you, and I am very sorry if this comes across in that fashion. I’m just rather passionate about this issue in general. I pray that I don’t seem “hateful” toward you.
In Christ with love,
Bernard
Well, looks like I put an end to THAT discussion. I’m sorry, Rob.
If anything at all in that comment doesn’t sit well with anyone, I’m very sorry. Just pretend that I didn’t actually write it and go on with your life. I’m a bit stressed right now and probably should have never even entered the conversation. Sorry.
Bernard,
Actually, I think your comment was pretty much “spot on.” I don’t think you have anything to apologize for.
Rob,
As far as I am able to make out, Romans 13:1-7 has basically four things to say about the role of government:
1. All governments are ultimately subject to God’s sovereignty, whether they recognize it or not.
2. God uses governments as His “servant” to accomplish some of the good things He intends for mankind.
3. He also uses governments as an “agent” to punish wrongdoers.
4. Governments legitimately collect taxes as a means to finance what they do.
Yet, if I understand you correctly, you are saying this passage is the basis of “the whole fabric of our Judeo-Christian cultural heritage.” It seems like to me that these basic principles extend far beyond an exclusively Judeo-Christian cultural heritage.
And, if it makes you feel any better about me, I am not in favor of any “one world” government before the time Jesus comes and personally establishes His rule over the “ethne” of the earth. I am (as we agreed upon earlier) highly distrustful of absolute power.
From a purely secular perspective, there are certain forms of government that seem to work better than others. There are also some governments that do a better job of protecting human rights and defending justice.
As Christians, if government is a means to do good to all men, I believe we should use it, especially in democratic systems where we all have a voice in the matter. I believe we should also do what is within our reach to promote peace in the world.
However, beyond the four basic points I mention above, I still don’t see where the Bible prescribes a specific role for government. And, I think our ultimate hope is not in government, but in the gospel.