 |
 |
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
 |
I thank God for the separation that exists in our country between Church and State. Whether our Founding Fathers envisioned the kind of separation that we have today is an open question. Certainly they would not have envisioned the separation between “religion” and the State. But the establishment clause suggests that the fathers had a profound fear of the loss of liberty to be had at the hands of a State church, or at the hands of a State meddling in the Church. Article I pretty much gets the State out of the business of controlling the Church. I am thankful for this. This is a precious and blessed protection for the Church of Jesus Christ. What we have in our U.S. Constitution is also an acceptable way for a body politic to be organized. It is certainly within the boundaries of what the Bible suggests is the role and function of the State. Plus, the relation between Church and State suggested in Article I of the Bill of Rights is also within Biblical boundaries. However, the Bible gives much less detail about this than you might realize, and many alternative approaches would actually also be within its boundaries. But our constitutional arrangement is certainly not non-Biblical. The Constitution says very little about how the Church is to relate back to the State. This silence is consistent with Article I of the Bill of Rights. The State shouldn’t be telling the church how to relate back to the State. Of course, it is not the Constitution but the Bible to which I go to understand how the Church is to relate back to the State. But surprisingly, the Bible doesn’t say terribly much about this either! Know that the questions of, on the one hand, how the Church as an organized entity relates to the State and, on the other hand, how the citizen relates to the State – these are two different questions. In Part I of this series I discussed the relation of the citizen to the State. What I am concerned with now is the role of the Church as a corporate entity, and as an institution, with respect to the State. One must first of all clarify that in the New Covenant era, Church and State are in fact two separate “bodies” or jurisdictions, both established and ordained by God. These jurisdictions were of course closely united in the Old Covenant. Then the “people of God” equaled “Israel,” and vice versa. Strictly speaking, the Torah did not at first even allow for a king. Rather, God Himself was to be the Ruler. Israel was to be a true Theocracy. After God chose to accommodate the people’s hankering after a king, the king was to be God’s representative, and was to be the enforcer of the Torah. Thus the king’s role, among other things, was to make sure the temple worship was pure, and that the people did not slide into idolatry and immorality, that they kept Sabbath, etc. What we might consider “religious” acts – things like worshipping a tree – were punishable by death, and the king was held accountable for carrying out these sentences and maintaining the fear of God in the land. Pluralism was not to be tolerated. The Old Covenant very clearly “established” a religion, a very specific and detailed religion. Its “constitution,” that is, the Torah, did not allow freedom of speech or assembly, or the free exercise of religion. In practice, however, the kings often forsook the Covenant, abandoned the Torah, and even lost it and forgot about it altogether for years and years. They acted mostly like despots and politicians always do. They looked after their dynasties, and permitted whatever worked for them. So much for the Old Covenant. God brought judgment upon His people, and the Old Covenant came to an end, and was fulfilled, and “wrapped up” in Jesus Christ. He lived it out perfectly, and bore its curse. It was finished, over. And God’s people became formally disassociated from the State. New Testament teachings show a very different approach to the civil government and its leaders. The people of God, the New Covenant people, the “ekklesia,” which we call the “Church” was more of an underground movement. The kingdom it proclaimed was “not of this world.” Its citizens were “strangers and aliens and exiles on earth” (Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 1:1,1:17,2:11; James 1:1). Its members were “citizens of heaven” (Phil. 3:20). It looked to a city whose “architect and builder was God” (Hebrews 11:10). Like Abraham, its people were looking for a “better country” (Hebrews 11:16). Its people had come to “MountZion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God (Hebrews 12:22). They were still a chosen people, a holy nation, a “nation” of course in a more figurative sense, a people belonging to God (1 Peter 1:9). But the nations and their governments were given legitimacy in the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. Christians were called to submit to (Romans 13:1-5; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13), pay taxes to (Romans 13:6-7; Matthew 22:17), honor (Romans 13:7; 1 Peter 2:17), pray for (1 Timothy 2:1), and fear (in the good sense, Romans 13:4) the civil authority. God had ordained the rulers to keep order, to punish evil (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-14), and to provide an atmosphere of peace and stability (1 Timothy 2:2). And we must remind ourselves again and again, the commandments to honor and submit to civil authority weren’t commandments to honor and submit to just those civil authorities we think do well at their God-ordained job, but to honor and submit to tyrants and despots like Nero as well! I only know of one place where believers as God’s people gathered to worship are told to do anything with respect to the civil authority, and that is to pray for kings and those in authority, as commanded in 1 Timothy 2:1-7. Does the Church have a prophetic function like Amos and Jeremiah to call a wavering civil authority back to its God ordained purpose? I think yes, and I think no. Our mission today with respect to the civil authority is not the same as that of the Old Covenant prophets who were sent as messengers of the covenant to call the kings and the people of God back to covenant obedience, back to the fulfillment of their covenant obligation before YHWH. The clearer analogy of this Old Covenant prophetic-type ministry today would be God raising up a person within the church to call God’s people – now the Church – back to covenant faithfulness. A present day Amos would most likely be found proclaiming a message within the assembly of God’s people. But the Old Covenant prophets also spoke against the surrounding nations – particularly, but not exclusively, about how they treated God’s people. Thus I would think that within boundaries the Church as a Church could possibly also make a moral plea to the nations to turn back from oppression and persecution and evil. Similarly, a church could present a moral case to the king or president or whomever about some moral/political issue. Sometimes I wish Jesus and Paul had spoken more directly to our situation living in a participative constitutional republic. But we have to do the best we can figuring it out, using general biblical principles to chart a course. I think that the best way to approach the Church’s relation to the State is by pondering the mission of the Church as given in Scripture, and specifically I mean the stated mission of the NewCovenantChurch. If we peruse the New Testament what would we discover the church is to be about? Well, there is the great commission in Matthew 28, the depiction of the early assembly in Jerusalem in Acts 2 and 4, the instructions about worship in the epistles (as in 1 Cor 12-14), the one another commandments, the narratives of how the various churches engaged in mission all through Acts, etc.. From these we could suggest the following. The church, the ekklesia, the assembly, is both to go as witnesses, and to send forth witnesses to proclaim the truth about Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18; Acts 1:8; Acts 13:1-3 The church is to make disciples, which includes baptizing and teaching disciples to obey all Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:18). The church is to gather together regularly (Hebrews 10:25, Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 14:23). The church is to pray (Acts 1:12-14; 2:42-47; 1 Tim. 2:8), to sing (Col. 3:16-17; Eph. 5:19-20), to attend to the apostles teaching (Acts 2:42f; Acts 11:25-26), to participate in the Lord’s supper (Acts 2:42-47; 1Cor. 11:17-34; Luke 22:7-23). The church is to show the reality of Jesus in its unity and love for one another (John 13:34; 17:23; Col. 3:14) The church is to share possessions one to another (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-35). The church is to pray for those in authority (1 Tim 2:1-2) The church is to give thanks (Eph. 5:20) The church is to exercise discipline (1 Cor. 5:1-5; 2 Thes. 3:14-15). The church is to be engaged in a mutual one-to-another spiritual-gift-sharing ministry (Rom. 12:3-8; Eph. 4:7-13; 1 Cor. 12) Now I am not going to argue that we can only do as a Church what is specifically commanded, for theoretically things arise in history which may call the Church forth to a new element of its mission. Nevertheless, the biblical portrait does suggest some things about how we as Church should and shouldn’t relate to the State in a modern democratic republic. Christian people relate not only to Church as an entity, but also to other institutions. We are citizens of heaven, and that is our most precious identity. But we are not just citizens of heaven. We are also citizens of the nation in which we live. Paul was a Roman citizen, and he felt very free to take proper advantage of the rights that afforded him; although I must add, that in his case, he took advantage of these rights only when he needed to better serve God in the mission of spreading the gospel. We are not only citizens in a theoretical sense, but we live in a certain culture, a certain society, around certain neighbors and work mates etc., and we have certain specific obligations as witnesses, as redeemed creatures, in these places. We are to be a certain way toward “outsiders” (Col. 4:5; 1 Thes. 4:12; 1 Tim. 3:7; 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 1 Cor 10:27; 1 Cor 14:24; Phil. 2:14-15; 1 Peter 2:12; 1 Peter 3:15-16), so that God will be glorified in our lives, and the cause of the gospel enhanced. We are as Christians to love and serve others. We do this in our jobs. We do this in our associations. It is good to be a part of neighborhood associations, PTA groups, Scouts, etc. In these spheres of life we are to be salt and light, to be and act a certain way for Christ’s sake – for the sake of the gospel. We live today in a missionary setting. We must act and live in such a way that will not hinder the gospel message. The Christian should be involved in “politics” to a certain extent, (just as he or she should be involved in PTA or neighborhood associations), if for no other reason than that of love for his neighbor. Seeking the good of the community suggests a self sacrificial political involvement for the sake of the well being of others, specifically those who are weak and unable to look after their own interests. Sadly, much political involvement is self-oriented. It amounts to lobbying for personal interests. I do not think this is the best motive for political involvement for the Christian. I am not fond of seeing Christian lobbying groups looking after “Christian” interests. That might be the only way to play the game these days, but it strikes me as being somewhat unseemly and inappropriate. Political involvement can also proceed from a motive of seeking to restore a body politic to its “proper function.” There is a proper ideological aspect to political involvement. Sadly, however, ideologues, even those who are theologically and morally biblical in their views, rarely have political success, for they do not properly respect the realities of the political process and the need for compromise in a pluralistic culture. They appear sometimes as bullies, and even as cry babies, who, if they can’t get their way, choose not to play at all. They usually lose elections and end up with nothing. There is little biblical precedent for the kind of critical, negative, “purist” approach to overturning the incumbent civil authority. Jesus and Paul seemed much more tolerant of political realities than many today. I think they were more respectful of the nature of sin, and had more realistic expectations. They were not the least inclined toward Utopian fantasies of how godly and Christian a country might be, as are some today. Their perspective seemed very much tempered by the reality of sin. Nevertheless, I think they would have encouraged those in churches to be engaged in the process, if they had had the freedom to do so, as we do today. Thus, it would appear to me that part of what it means to teach disciples to “obey all I have commanded you” has to do with teaching them to be engaged in the process of life in the body-politic. This is part ( and only a part, even a small part) of the Christian’s total discipleship, his or her service for Christ in the world. This is part of the Christian’s responsibility to take care of the earth, to exercise dominion, to love his or her neighbor. Thus, the leaders of a church in their teaching ministry should encourage and help the Christian do this. The teaching to obey “all I have commanded” includes instruction about family life, about honoring parents, about work and vocation, about marriage and parenting, and about involvement in politics, etc.. But as I look at the mission of the Church proper, I do not see that it is the Church’s calling to be engaged in the political process per se. For that reason the gathering of the church in its corporate life is not the place for the Christian to seek to exercise his or her duty as a citizen of the body politic. The corporate gathering isn’t the place for urging people to vote for so and so. It isn’t the place to usher the troops to the polls, to request people to call representatives, to complain about elected officials, to whip up fear and hysteria about how terrible things are, to engage in debate about various candidates. The corporate setting is the place for believers to pray for those in authority (i.e., incumbents), to pray for one another as citizens engaged in works of service in the world out there, occasionally to teach about the need to be so engaged, to teach about the attitudes and demeanor to carry into that engagement, and to preach, as part of the process of presenting the full counsel of God, about various moral issues facing individuals and the “body politic,” with the goal particularly that the gathered Christians themselves would walk obediently! The preaching of the law of God must include how that law can and should be applied and obeyed in different aspects of our lives, and should thus help the Christian act and think Christianly in all facets of life. This makes the Christian a more fully Christ-like person, and enables him or her to bring blessing to the world, and to transform it in small but significant ways here and there. But this kind of teaching should take its proper place within the overall mission of the church, which includes many other things, and many other concerns. It is easy to progress from the kind of teaching I have mentioned to suggesting to people how to vote, to organizing a letter writing campaign, to promoting a showing at a city council meeting. But in my judgment a line would have been crossed in so doing, and the church would be operating outside of its biblically mandated mission. I have often heard people suggest that “if the church had gotten off its duff the last three decades, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in. If the church had done this; if the church had done that.” My response is, yes, if Christian citizens hadn’t been asleep then at least some of this wouldn’t have happened. To the extent that the church has promoted a fortress mentality and insulted itself from the big bad terrible world out there, to the extent that the church has promoted the development of its own cheap little second rate Christian-ghetto subculture and has thus taken itself out of conversation with the greater culture, to the extent that it has failed in its teaching to convince people that they are to be Christians all week, and are to be engaged in all aspects of life under Christ’s Lordship, to the extent that antinomian theology has convinced millions of Americans that they are Christians when they are not, then I agree with the point to some extent. But if by this the charge is that the church should have been organizing political resistance to this or that, I do not agree at all. The real problem isn’t that the church hasn’t been doing what it shouldn’t have been doing (organizing letter campaigns to Congressmen, etc.), but that it hasn’t been doing what it should have been doing. What the church should seek to be is the church! If we really had 60 million born again biblical Christians in America we wouldn’t have many of the problems we have. We would have some of them. We would have problems even if every person in the country were a born again Christian! But we certainly wouldn’t have the level of moral decline we have now. So, Church of Jesus Christ, fulfill the mission! Devote yourselves to prayer! Be holy as God is holy! Make disciples! Love one another! Worship God! Proclaim the gospel! Be hospitable! Give to one another! Pray for those in authority! Seek ye first the kingdom of God! Attend to the apostles teaching! Be servants in the world! Go forth into the world, and be Christians there! Be in the world! Go over the list above. Is your church fulfilling the mission of the church? If not, then it must. Help it to do so. Pray for it. Help it do well its biblically stated mission. Help it concentrate on that, and it will have done well. Many of us are way more passionate about the kingdoms of men than the kingdom of God. We care more about the kingdom of America than the kingdom of Jesus. We spend more time listening to political pundits than we spend studying our Bibles or understanding the ways of the kingdom of God. We are more emotionally distraught by our candidate’s fall in the polls than by the decline of interest in the biblical gospel. We invest more real emotional human hope in a change in the political landscape than we do in the grace to be revealed when Jesus is revealed. We believe the ultimate purpose of the ministry of the church is to make the country a better place to raise a family. We don’t much believe in heaven and hell anymore, which means that we easily replace the gospel of Christ with a gospel of conservatism or liberalism or whatever. At the root of it we are very worldly. We are not seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. We see a moral decline and the loss of moral/spiritual moorings, a rising paganism, and we are afraid. So we have created a very worldly alternative culture, an alternative Christianized and sanitized version of the American dream. This alternative ‘Christian” culture is, at the same time, both worldly and anti-culture. Both are wrong. The combination is deadly. The alternative “Christian” culture is worldly in two ways. First, it is just about as materialistic and greedy and market driven as the surrounding culture. Second, it is inclined to focus over-much on earthly agendas and political processes as solutions to spiritual and moral problems. The alternative “Christian” culture is anti-culture in the sense that it has abandoned and written off the larger general culture, except to lob criticisms and complaints over the walls. Its focus is on winning the culture war, and by doing that not by Daniel-like prayer, not by self sacrificial service, and not by truly distinctive behavior, but by power wrought through political activity. By this means it wants to replace the surrounding culture with its own ostensibly superior evangelical culture. In the past, one way to deal with surrounding pagan culture was to withdraw altogether and create a truly alternative culture, and more or less unworldly culture, as the Amish have done. Through this approach, the Amish have managed to maintain their integrity and cultural distinctiveness as they await the return of their Savior. Another approach has been simply to accommodate to the culture and become almost completely like it and lost in it, as Christians in America typically have over the last 100 years. A third approach in the last three decades has been to create an alternative semi-removed separate modern culture with its own music and books and films. Within this approach are those who just don’t care about the surrounding culture, and those who fight for takeover of the larger culture. This alternative “Christian” culture is morally much more like the surrounding culture than it would admit. This is American evangelical culture today. There is a fourth approach, one I think which was advocated by Jesus Himself. This approach is that of self sacrificial engagement in human society by people who are in the world but who truly walk to the beat of a different drummer, people who seek like Abraham, another kingdom, who live out the ethics of that kingdom, who are morally pure, who are different in their meekness and patience and love and kindness, who work for the betterment of the lives of their neighbors, who look not after their own interests, who behave toward outsiders in a way than earns their respect, who are willing to die for their Lord, who “sympathize with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property, because they know that they themselves have better and lasting possessions.” These people go out as sheep amongst wolves ready to be devoured if need be. These people love and pray for their enemies. They lay up for themselves treasures in heaven. They don’t care about status and prestige and what neighborhood they live in. They eat with gentiles and sinners. They mix it up with the grime of the world and stay pure and unstained. They are hospitable to saints and sinners alike. They take the gospel to the hurting. They live out the “ethics of the kingdom.” Kingdom-of-God Christians love one another with a love that surprises many in the world. They are more concerned with God’s honor than their own honor. All involvement by Christians in the political process should be in keeping with these kingdom ethics, period, no matter who scoffs at this as impractical or idealistic. All engagement of kingdom people in the political process should be seen as service, and not just service to a Christian minority, but service to their unchristian neighbor, to the oppressed, to the needy, to the general good of the people. The kingdom-of-God Christian seeks the good of the city, and one of the many ways to do this is by an appropriate political involvement. So I say, yes, by all means, be engaged in the political process as a part of your Christian duty and service. But be involved not with a “we-verses-them” attitude, but with an attitude of love and service to your neighbors and countrymen. Go to your enemies and try to befriend them. Find common ground with them if you can. Pray for them. Love them. Do not be over surprised by evil. It’s not going to go away with a change in the administration. Work hard to change things, always with a good spirit, and trust God. Pray. And all the while don’t lose sight of greater priorities, kingdom priorities, and the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is not the mission of the Church to engage in the political process. Period. It is part of the mission of the Christian citizen to do this, for the right reasons, but not the church as a corporate body. So let continue to pray for those in authority over us. Let us continue to try to fulfill our mission as a Church, an “ekklesia,” a local assembly of believers. If we can fulfill that mission better and better with God’s blessing upon us, then there will be a spill over positive impact on our culture, even though that is not the first reason for fulfilling our mission. We won’t as a local church, for reasons I hope you understand, promote candidates, use the sharing time to urge people to vote for so and so, organize letter writing campaigns, mobilize the troops. We won’t distribute literature about candidates and their voting records. We will encourage involvement in the process. We will pray for our leaders. And we will not hold back preaching about moral and ethical matters, teaching you, disciples of Jesus, to obey all he has commanded. We will not be afraid to make application of biblical/moral principles to real life and even to public life issues, whenever this is appropriate. We will encourage you to talk to one another, to seek wisdom from one another, about how we as Christians are to be engaged. But we encourage you to do this one to another with grace and with a teachable spirit. Because of the power of example, I am thinking hard about how I as Christian citizen should and shouldn’t engage in the process. Pray for me. I hope these thoughts are helpful. |
 |
|
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
