- We are going to dig into a subject this morning that is challenging. We are going to be talking about church and state. It’s one we don’t talk about particularly often.
- As we start, I want to acknowledge up front that these passages are difficult. I want to say that I don’t like everything that Paul and Peter teach us here. If I had the option, I would probably make a few changes, but the Bible is the truth whether we like it or not. And so we receive the whole thing and not just the parts we like.
- Given that, let me say a couple things as we start.
- First, if you don’t like something I say this morning and you think I have misinterpreted the passage, I encourage you to call or email me so we can work through the passage together. I am not inerrant in my interpretation and could certainly have made a mistake. I want to get my Bible exegesis right and so I embrace questions like that.
- Second, though, if you don’t like something I say this morning just because you don’t like what the passage says, then that’s a different matter. If you agree that it says what I preached, but you just don’t like what the Bible says, then there is no reason for you to contact me. If that’s the case, your problem is not with the messenger (me), but with the Author (God). Feel free to complain to Him in prayer and see how far that gets you.
- Now let’s get into these passages about church and state. We will start with the overarching point of these two key “church and state” passages.
THE CHRISTIAN AND GOVERNMENT: We are to submit to the governing authorities.
- Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17.
- Unpacking Romans 13.
a. v. 1a – We are called as Christians to submit to the authority of the government.
- Let’s acknowledge up front that we likely aren’t big fans of this command. We don’t like the word “submit” in any context. We like thinking about our rights.
- Why would Paul make such a bold statement? We’ll get into some more specifics as we go through the passage, but the starting point is the government is much preferred to anarchy. We don’t want chaos and a Lord of the Flies situation.
- The starting point for the Christian’s relationship to government is that we are to recognize their legitimate and God-given authority.
- We need to note that this doesn’t say “good government” or “democracy” or “government I like.” It just says government.
b. v. 1b – The government’s authority has been given by God.
- For the reason that we just noted (to preserve order), God has ordained government.
c. v. 2 – We are not to rebel against the government.
- Paul writes that the general rule on this issue is that rebelling against the government is like rebelling against God. When we hear that, we immediately cry out, “What are the exceptions?!” We will look here in a moment at what we do when the government isn’t doing right, but don’t rush past this important point: the authority of government is established by God.
d. v. 3 – No terror for those who do right.
- The general rule of government is that it will not be frightening if you’re doing what is right.
e. v. 4 – The authority of government (including “bear[ing] the sword”) is part of the authority God has given.
- In fact, in that sense, government is “God’s servant” to bring about justice, including punishing the wrongdoer.
f. v. 5 – For all those reasons, Paul says that we are to submit to the authorities.
- Here we see the second reason we should. The first was noted in vv. 3-4 – that we don’t want to be punished as wrongdoers. The second reason is noted here: because of our conscience.
- Look with me at a similar passage in 1 Peter 2.
a. vv. 13-14 – Peter starts with the same broad point: submit to the authority of government.
- Here we see the same starting point as Paul in Romans 13. We as Christians are to submit to the authority of the government for the sake of God.
b. vv. 15-16 – Our godly, orderly, good lives show us to be servants of God.
- We live as free men but we recognize that we are not to use our freedom as an excuse to sin.
- Now that we’ve looked at these two passages, let’s acknowledge a couple things:
1. Even though one is written by Paul and one by Peter, they are remarkably consistent in their main thought: we are to submit to the governing authorities.
2. And secondly, let’s acknowledge that we don’t like that word “submit.”
- It just grates against us. We like to talk about our rights and our freedoms. “Submit” is like nails on a chalkboard.
- And it’s not just in this context. Even when we talk about the fact that we as Christians are to obey the teaching of Jesus whether we like it or not, many Christians buck at that. We want Jesus as Savior, but the idea of Him being Lord is far more difficult for us. Why? Again, we like being in charge. We like running the show. We like to emphasize our rights and freedoms.
- Then we look at the particular context of these two passages: the word “submit” in the context of government? We like that even less!
- So we need to pause for a minute and acknowledge that we don’t like this. “Pastor, that’s not the way I want things to be.” Granted. And I’ll agree with you: I don’t really like what he says here either.
- So we want to say, “No, thanks” and continue to do things our way.
- But we can’t because we are Bible-believing Christians.
- Jesus says I need to forgive my enemies and I say, “I don’t like that. I don’t want to do that. I don’t feel like doing that.” As Bible-believing Christians we acknowledge that the Bible doesn’t care about my feelings! If the Bible says it, I am to obey that teaching!
- Jesus says looking on a woman lustfully is like committing adultery in my heart and I say, “I don’t like that. I don’t want to live that way. I don’t like what He said.” As Bible-believing Christians we acknowledge that the Bible doesn’t care about my feelings! If the Bible says it, I am to obey that teaching!
- So let’s pause for a moment in our displeasure with these verses and say, “These are commands from the Bible. They’re not open to debate for us as Christians. Our job is to understand them correctly and then live them out.”
- So if you’re listening today and so far you’re like, “I don’t like what you’re saying, Pastor.” Let me say back to you, “Me either.” I would like this to say something else. But we are Bible-believing Christians, so we say, “Yes, Lord” and walk forward.
- We have learned from these two passages that we are to submit to the governing authorities. That is the main truth that we need to hold onto.
- That immediately brings to mind what the exceptions are. The first question toward that end is almost certainly, “What about when the government isn’t doing right?” It’s a good question – and an important one – so we’ll handle that next.
WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T DOING RIGHT? The church may be called to civil disobedience, but is not called to violent revolution.
- Daniel 1:1-16; Daniel 3:1-30; John 18:33-38; Acts 4:1-31.
- Matthew 2:2-3; Luke 9:22; John 6:14-15; Acts 1:6.
- There are a number of key passages that I want to look at to establish what the Bible has to say about this question, but the overall answer we’re going to fill in is this: there are times when the church may be called to stand up in civil disobedience against government wrongs, but we as the church are never in the Bible called to pursue violent revolution.
- Let me take a moment to define civil disobedience. That is when someone feels that a law is unjust before God and they knowingly violate that law. They realize that the government may inflict a punishment on them if they do that and they do the act willing to pay that penalty.
- We famously saw that during the Civil Rights Movement with people violating the immoral segregation laws in the south, knowing that they might end up in jail. They were engaging in civil disobedience.
- An example from today: what if the government of the U.S. decided one day to make it illegal to attend church worship? They repealed the First Amendment authorizing freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech. If the government said, “You can never worship again,” would I go along with that or would I violate the law for the sake of my conscience? I would violate the law and I would worship as an act of civil disobedience.
- Let’s dig in and flesh this out.
- We are going to look at four passages:
a. Peter and John are told not to preach anymore.
- Acts 4:1-31.
- Acts tells us the story of the early church and it doesn’t take long for the disciples to get in trouble. They are preaching the resurrection of Jesus (v. 2) and temple guard are sent to put them in jail for that (vv. 1, 3). (It’s worth noting here that we have an unusual “governmental” situation. The Romans were, of course, the ultimate authority at that time in the region. Nonetheless, they gave the Jewish leaders a measure of authority, as shown clearly here by the fact that they had the authority to arrest Peter and John. We see this mixed authority most clearly in the crucifixion story when the Jewish leaders ask Pilate to authorize Jesus’ death because the Romans had not given the Jews the right to impose the death penalty (John 18:29-31). So in spite of the limits, they clearly had some governing authority.)
- With Peter and John’s preaching, there is a hearing the next day (vv. 5) where they end up being commanded not to preach about Jesus anymore (vv. 18). Their response is bold: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (vv. 19-20). This is often shortened to say that there are situations where we must obey God rather than man.
- What’s important for our purposes this morning is that throughout the book of Acts the disciples continue to do what is right when it comes to preaching the gospel. That is a command of God that they must obey, even when the governing authorities don’t like it. They are often arrested and beaten for their disobedience to the commands of man. Nevertheless, never once in the book of Acts (or the rest of the New Testament) do we have a discussion from them of engaging in violence to overthrow the governing authorities. Not once.
- So they perfectly reflect the point in your sermon outline: they were willing to engage in civil disobedience to do what was right in keeping the commands of God, but as they did that they never engaged in violence to try to overthrow the government.
b. Daniel working within a pagan Babylonian government.
- Daniel 1:1-16.
- Daniel and his three friends are carried off into captivity from Judah to Babylon (v. 1). Once in that foreign land, they are chosen for service in the Babylonian government (vv. 3-7).
- Daniel has a problem, though. The royal food allotment from the Babylonian king includes items that would cause him to violate Jewish law (v. 8). His first step is to go to the official over him and ask for an exemption (v. 8). The official is reluctant (vv. 9-10), but Daniel offers a reasonable solution (vv. 11-14). This revised diet of vegetables and water produces a good result (vv. 15-16) and the crisis is averted.
- What is worth noting for our purposes is that Daniel stood up for what he believed, was willing to make sacrifices for these matters of conscience, but did not pursue violent means.
c. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and the fiery furnace.
- Daniel 3:1-30.
- Let’s look at a more dramatic example: the fiery furnace.
- The Babylonian king wants everyone to bow down in worship to a giant statue (vv. 1-5). If you don’t bow down, you will be killed in a fiery furnace (v. 6).
- Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to bow down because worship is to be reserved for God alone (v. 12). They get ratted out (vv. 8-12) and the king gives them an angry ultimatum (vv. 13-15).
- In response, the three say they will not bow down (v. 18). They do not know if God will save them, although they know that He can (vv. 16-17). But no matter the outcome they will not violate their conscience and bow down to anyone other than God.
- We all know the miraculous ending to the story, but for our purposes this morning the ending is inconsequential. The main takeaway for us is that when faced with the edict that violated their obligations to God, they engaged in civil disobedience. That is, they refused to obey the immoral law even though they knew the consequences that might come to them. Again, though, there was no thought of violence as a response.
d. Jesus faces Pilate.
- John 18:33-38.
- Jesus says something during His interview with Pilate that is essential for us to consider here. Pilate asks Jesus if He is a king and about the charges against Him (vv. 33-35). Jesus’ reply is powerful: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is from another place” (v. 36).
- There are couple things we need to address:
- First, Jesus says that His Kingdom is not of this world. What does that mean? Does it mean that it has nothing to do with life on this planet? Of course not, because Jesus says in v. 37 that what He’s about to do (die on the cross and be resurrected) is the very reason He came into this world. We know that He came on a rescue mission for us.
- No, what He means is that His Kingdom is not from here. It is from nowhere less than the throne room of heaven itself. That closing statement that the Kingdom is “from another place” (v. 36) highlights what He’s trying to say.
- Jesus has come into enemy territory (because this world is under Satan’s control) to rescue the POWs. He’s not from here, but He intends to make a difference here.
- Secondly, Jesus says that if He was from here then His servants would fight to prevent His arrest. What is He speaking of? Violence against government. And He basically dismisses that option away. “That’s not the kind of Kingdom I’m the king of,” Jesus in essence says. “I’m not here so we can overthrow the existing governments. If you think that’s the point, you don’t understand the type of Kingdom I’m bringing.”
- This can hardly be overstated for the point I am making. If you think that part of what the church needs to be working on includes the violent overthrow of established governments, you have completely misunderstood the nature of the Kingdom that Jesus came to establish.
- Now, this is not an afterthought. Remember that Jesus was getting a ton of pressure throughout His ministry. People wanted a Messiah to violently overthrow Rome and reestablish a powerful Israel. At His birth He was proclaimed “king of the Jews” (Matthew 2:2) and that statement had so much weight to the people concerning political power that all of Jerusalem was “disturbed” (Matthew 2:3) at that word. Later when they saw Jesus doing miracles, they wanted to force Him to be king right then (John 6:14-15) so He would use that power to free them. Repeatedly throughout His ministry Jesus explained the suffering that the Messiah was going to go through (Luke 9:22, for example) and even His disciples couldn’t figure out what He was talking about because they were totally sold out to the idea of Messiah as political conqueror. Even after forty days of teaching after the resurrection, the disciples still asked, “Lord, are You at this time going to restore the kingdom of Israel?” (Acts 1:6). So Jesus proclaims His point to Pilate against a backdrop of an entire ministry spent with people pushing Him in the opposite direction. They want a Kingdom of earthly power! But that’s not what Jesus is coming to establish.
- Given all those passages, let’s look at a contemporary example to see what this looks like in practice. I’m going to choose an example that is a little uncomfortable for us because we need to feel the weight of this teaching.
- The church in China is growing dramatically, despite oppression and persecution from the officially atheistic communist government.
- Speaking of religious liberty in general in China, the Chinese government has recently been accused of nothing less than genocide against the Uyghur (pronounced wee-grr) Muslim minority in Xinjiang (pronounced shin-jaang). They are literally running reeducation camps for those people.
- The Christian church has also endured arrests and imprisonments because of the Chinese government simply for practicing their faith. About a year ago there were major headlines made when Wang Yi, the pastor of Early Rain Covenant Church, was arrested. Numerous other pastors have been arrested; numerous churches have been razed.
- It’s a terrible situation.
- Now, let’s imagine for a second that I’m in China and I’m invited to speak before one of these congregations. I hate what their government is doing against them. Everything within me wants religious liberty for them. I want to tell them to rise up and overthrow their tyrannical government! But I can’t. I have no Biblical foundation for making such a statement.
- The statements in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 to submit to the government apply there too. That’s tough medicine, but it’s what the Bible says. “Well,” we say, “Paul and Peter just didn’t realize what the real world looks like.” Really? They lived during the time of Rome. They were imprisoned for their faith. They were run out of towns. They were eventually killed for their faith. We’re the ones sitting in a nice, comfy democracy! We’re the ones who don’t know what it’s like to live under a tyrannical government.
- Even in a situation like that, we are not called to violent revolution. These are not easy truths, but it’s what the Bible teaches us.
- The question some might want to ask at this point is, “But where is the line where it is ok to be part of an armed revolt?”
- This reminds me of a similar question that youth pastor might get. After teaching about sexual purity, a likely question is, “How far can I go with my girlfriend before it’s wrong?”
- That person wants to know exactly where the line is. Why? Because he wants to get right up to the line and lean over, right? Of course he does!
- It is not a question completely without value, but asking the question reveals that your heart is headed in the wrong direction. Your focus is not honoring God with all your life, but how much you can get away with before God gets after you.
- Something similar is in play here. If your question in response to what I’ve said so far is, “Ok, but where is the line where violence is acceptable?” then your heart is pointed in the wrong direction. Your focus should be on the Kingdom and seeing it grow. Thoughts of secular power should be insignificant to you. Our interest in such question reveals our misguided attention.
- I want to proceed to my next point, but let me take a moment to note what I am not saying here. I am not preaching pacifism. I do believe when there is a “just war” (like, for instance, World War II) that Christians are right to stand up and fight. A full discussion of that subject is worthy of a sermon of its own, but I do want to make it clear that I am speaking of the church pursuing violent revolution, not the Christian’s duty when one nation is battling another in a just war.
- Now, that leads to a third question: why wouldn’t God open up that door to us? Let’s answer that.
WHY DOES THE BIBLE GIVE THESE CHALLENGIN TEACHINGS? Our goal is not the accumulation of earthly power; our goal is the expansion of the Kingdom of God.
- Luke 4:5-8; Luke 5:27-32; Luke 6:13-16; Luke 9:62; Luke 14:25-33; John 17:14-16.
- In many things in life, it is absolutely essential that you keep your real goal in mind. It’s so easy to get distracted by secondary things. You have to stay focused on the assigned goal.
- We see this issue all the time. A student goes off to college and has a great time partying, but flunks out of school and ends up destitute with a minimum wage job. They forgot their main goal. It wasn’t “how much fun can you have?” but passing all their classes.
- Can you imagine a basketball team that focused on how many passes they could make in a game? Now, passing is good and often is related to being able to score, but passing isn’t the main goal. It’s how many points you score that determines whether you win.
- We need to keep our eyes clear here too. We are in the world but not of the world (John 17:14-16). Being in the world, it is easy to get distracted by what the world says is important.
- One way the church in America does that today is with material things. We as the church should know that those things are temporary and not of eternal value. We should know that spending our lives chasing after such things is a waste of our valuable time. And yet so many of us do that. We get focused on a secondary thing (money, possession, etc) and lose sight of our main goal.
- Now, let’s apply this specifically to what we’re talking about this morning. There is a temptation to have earthly power. Jesus was offered this as one of the three temptations in the desert (Luke 4:5-8). One of the ways to accumulate earthly power is by having governmental power.
- It’s tempting to have people in power in government who are doing what we want. It’s even tempting to think that if we gain government power then we can make this country into what we want it to be. This has actually been a temptation the conservative church in America has been engaging in since its response to Roe v. Wade. (More on that next week.)
- It’s essential that we know what our goal is. Our goal is not the accumulation of earthly power. Say it with me: our goal is not the accumulation of earthly power! If we run after that, we are pursuing something that is not our goal. We are like the basketball team who thinks we’re winning because we’re passing it the most. That’s not how you win a basketball game!
- This doesn’t mean that we don’t vote. We should!
- This doesn’t mean that we don’t run for office. We should!
- But it does mean that in everything we do we have our sights set on something higher than the accumulation of earthly power.
- Our goal is the expansion of the Kingdom of God. What does that mean exactly?
- It’s simple. We want people to come to know Jesus. We want people to follow Jesus. We want to Kingdom of God to reign in people’s hearts. We want God’s will done as much as possible in the lives of ourselves and those who are a part of the Kingdom with us.
- Let’s talk about the book of Acts as a whole for a moment. Let’s start with this question: does the book of Acts tell a story of success?
- Well, it depends on your goal. If the goal was the accumulation of earthly power, then the book of Acts tells the story of repeated, dramatic failure. The disciples are constantly getting imprisoned and run out of town. Some are killed. So if earthly power was the goal, then the book of Acts tells us the early church was a failure.
- But what if the goal was (as I am arguing) the expansion of the Kingdom of God? Then the picture changes entirely. Sure, the disciples are constantly encountering opposition from various governmental authorities and they never achieve any political power, but many are saved. The church adds greatly to the number who are followers of Christ. Many new churches are started.
- In fact, and this is a big deal, the achievement of the goal of the expansion of the Kingdom was actually (wait for it) aided by the government’s negative response. It forced Christians to flee to new areas and once they were there they preached the gospel to those who had never heard. The persecution actually led to a great and widespread revival.
- So if earthly power was the goal, then the book of Acts tells of a failure. If the expansion of the Kingdom was the goal, then the book of Acts tells of an unparalleled success.
- It’s also clarifying on this point to think about Jesus’ two disciples who probably hated each other: Simon the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector.
- Luke 5:27-32; Luke 6:13-16.
- Now the Bible doesn’t tell us anything about their interactions, but I say that they likely hated each other at least initially because of their backgrounds. Simon (not Simon Peter) was a Zealot, which was a party that pursued the violent overthrow of the Roman government. Matthew was a tax collector, which was a position occupied by Jews who were essentially conspiring with the Romans. They were, to put it simply, at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
- If Jesus intended His group to adhere to an existing party platform or religious philosophy, He was off to a terrible start because He picked people with pretty much nothing in common and almost certainly hated each other.
- So why do that? Why pick people from such disparate backgrounds?
- Much of the answer is found in the very point I am making: Jesus was not interested in furthering the accumulation of earthly power for existing power structures. Jesus came to inaugurate something new: the Kingdom of God. And each person who came into it was asked to lay aside their existing loyalties and ideas and adhere to this new, breathtaking thing that Jesus was starting (Luke 14:25-33).
- Although they were coming from completely different directions, Simon and Matthew both had to do the same thing: lay aside their old baggage to follow Jesus and pursue the Kingdom of God (Luke 9:62).
- That Jesus would pick two people so radically different is clear evidence that He was not pursuing business as usual. It was something completely new.
- Often as Christians we want to take pieces of Jesus and His teaching and try to make them fit into our preexisting beliefs and structures. And Jesus says, “No.” That’s not what this is about. This is something new and you have to leave everything behind and put the Kingdom of God first. It’s going to challenge you in ways you never thought or expected, but that’s ok – it’s worth it. It’s Jesus’ Kingdom.
- When you die, what will God ask you?
- “Were you a Democrat? Were you a Republican? Were you rich? Were you poor? Were you American? Where you European? From Africa? From Asia? Were you good-looking? Were you homely? Were you white? Were you black? Were you Asian? Were you Native American?”
- Or is the only thing that ultimately matters this: “Were you a follower of Jesus and did you help others to become followers of Jesus? Did you work to expand the Kingdom of God?”
- We believe that human beings and the Kingdom of God are the only things making it out of this world!
- Focus on what matters most!
