This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course essays by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
How would the statements by the Apostles Paul and Peter (in Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1 Peter 2:13-17) have differed if they had been modern day Americans rather than living under the Roman state? The study of history, economics, political science, world religions, literary forms, and philosophy are important for proper biblical interpretation. Without a good grasp of these fields of endeavor, the interpreter is prone to make errors in judgment, including errors in applying the doctrinal rules regarding submission to authority under a modern “democracy” (or republic) rather than an autocracy.
For instance, the synoptic gospel accounts say that the death of Christ occurred at the “sixth hour” (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44), while John 19:14 says that He was still with Pilate at that time. How can one reconcile the difference in time? Is the discrepancy proof that the Bible contains errors? By applying knowledge from fields such and history along with deductive reasoning, one will find that John’s Gospel was written much later than the other three accounts—after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. That cataclysmic event crushed, among other things, the Jewish manner of keeping time. For a Jew, a day began at 6AM instead of midnight (the latter being both the Roman convention and ours today). Thus, in Jewish time the sixth hour corresponded to noon in Roman time. John would have used Roman time in his gospel and so there is no contradiction in the Bible. Accordingly, biblical interpretation can be facilitated and enhanced by careful utilization of the tools from other disciplines.
That is not to say that all doctrines of the Bible require tools from disciplines like the sciences or the humanities to be well understood. In particular, the doctrine of salvation and the nature and attributes of God may be clearly manifest to even the most uninformed reader. But some theology and specific doctrine requires hard work to flesh out appropriately—including the use of analytical tools and knowledge gleaned from other disciplines. Thus, a good grasp of economics, public policy theory, and history are a great boon in developing a biblical theology of public policy.
The political context of the Apostles differed greatly from the situation of the modern West. Not only do most Western nations not have an autocratic state, the rules of interventionism have changed. Rome had no welfare state. This fact is important for Christians because welfarism is based on the notion of “positive rights”. This political philosophy justifies plundering one group of citizens in order to benefit another, and is therefore an abomination to the Christian faith.
Would the Apostles have encouraged modern Christians in the West to participate in welfare state programs or employment schemes? If we take the Scriptural admonitions against theft seriously, the answer must be “No”. The Bible clearly prohibits theft: “You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another” (Leviticus 19:11), “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15; Matthew 19:18, Romans 13:9), “Let him 3 who stole steal no longer” (Ephesians 4:28a); and it forbids idleness: “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (1 Thessalonians 3:10).
The fact that the state legalizes plunder through extortive taxation policy does not justify the theft, nor does the state’s rewarding of idleness excuse complacent joblessness. Recipients may not receive welfare and be innocent any more than a woman or her abortion “doctor” can be guiltless of murder when performing a “legal” abortion. How can a Christian rightly contend that the Apostles would have contradicted their teaching against theft by allowing looting through the political process? The bottom line is that a Christian cannot be righteous while voluntarily requesting welfare state benefits like Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, educational grants, or subsidized housing.
Furthermore, the existence of democratic processes under a constitutional republic does not alter the malevolent nature of proactive public policies or the bad behavior of government agents. Representative government does not preclude Christians from championing causes against bad legislation, evil decrees, or nefarious rulers. Neither does it prevent them from disobeying foul edicts. There is nothing in Scripture that would lead one to believe that state-sponsored extortion or state-sanctioned murder (e.g., abortion and euthanasia) are cleansed (or are no longer wrong) because they have been approved through a representative process. And it is inconsistent for Christian leaders to arbitrarily decry abortion policy but not extortion policies.
The Apostles simply did not envision (and could not have imagined) Christian submission to the state entailing us Christians voluntarily participating in thefts, murders, unjustified aggression, fraud, or malice. Had the Apostles been able to foresee what would transpire under modern “democracies” in the name of “the general welfare” or the “public interest”, they would have both condemned the policies as evil and certainly discouraged Christian participation in them. Further, the Apostles would have doubtless called believers to be those who stand up against such evil policies, whenever prudent, as a matter of maintaining integrity in their Christian lifestyles and their commitment to the Truth. Nowadays pastors and church leaders, rather than Apostles, are left with the charge of calling Christians to maintain integrity. The big question is: “Are they willing to do so?”
Originally published in The Times Examiner on June 15, 2005.
Tags: Bible, ethics, government, history, The State, theology
This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course essays by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
Just what does divine appointment imply about public policy, particularly proactive varieties? Are rulers (or states) generally good men (or institutions) simply because they are ordained by God? How can a God-ordained institution persist in legalizing crime and legitimizing the criminal behavior of rulers?
Thomas Jefferson candidly observed, “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” In Common Sense, Thomas Paine agreed: “…could we take off the dark covering of antiquity [pertaining to the origin of kings and of the State] and trace them to their first rise, we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang; whose savage manners or pre-eminence and subtlety obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions.” Likewise, Sigmund Freud (cited by Albert J. Nock in Our Enemy, the State) observed: “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” History teaches us that rulers and states everywhere have typically advocated evil policies and have behaved in ways that would be categorized as criminal if done in the private sector. Read More→
Tags: christian libertarian, Christianity, Romans 13, statism, statolatry, theology, theonomy
This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course essays by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
May a state legalize crime or actions that God says are wicked? Does God give the state permission to break His laws by virtue of the fact that it is the appointed civil authority—elected or otherwise?
As I have documented in Bible and Government: Public Policy from a Christian Perspective (Alertness Books, 2003), the insidious nature of the state with its public policies is manifest in over 90% of the occurrences of the motif in the Bible (outside of the Old Testament theocracy). The Apostles lived under Nero, who was certainly one of the most evil rulers in history, along with local draconian rulers like Herod. They had no delusions about the nature of the state which often persecuted them.
Moreover, since the closing of the canon, the menacing nature of public policy and states has continued to be manifest. As the Bible instructs us: “If you see the oppression of the poor, and the violent perversion of justice and righteousness in a province, do not marvel at the matter; for high official watches over high official, and higher officials are over them” (Ecclesiastes 5:8).
Tags: christian libertarian, christian libertarianism, government, history, Romans 13, statism, statolatry, theology, theonomy
This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course essays by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
A few more words must be spoken against the mainstream preacher’s frequent apologies for the state, its rulers, and its public policies. What would the preacher who tells us that “rebellion against authority is rebellion against God” say about policies that force us to send our kids to a public school or to a foreign war, prevent preachers from making politically incorrect statements from the pulpit, disallow us to spank our kids, or prohibit us from hunting deer on our property (especially in cases when one’s family is hungry)? Ultimately, a preacher gets nowhere fast by making a statement that exceptions to obeying rulers exist without specifying what the exceptions must be. Believers need to know how to live in this “present evil age” (Galatians 1:4) and preachers similar to the one I heard do not help them by making superficial generalities (especially when there is not a good biblical reason to do so).
Yet the preacher basks in ignorance and pounces on anyone who asks him questions that make him feel uncomfortable. These preachers believe that such interrogatives must come from “radicals”, after all, and their presence in our churches might frighten some people away. Think of all the good Tories that might become uneasy if we allow church members to contemplate the exigencies of civil disobedience!
Such preachers will not mention the exceptions to obeying rulers because they do not know the extent of these exceptions. It is the non-thinking, easy way out to merely mention the short list of resistance items (e.g., not bowing to idols, not desisting from Gospel preaching, and not killing infants) and pass over the more analytically arduous questions. And the last thing that a spiritually-focused yet pietistic preacher desires is to be pressed into specifying items qualifying for civil disobedience!
I could probably come up with a list of fifty policies that I would “rebel” against. Another person might only choose to “rebel” against twenty of them. Maybe you and your cousin Joe would accept my fifty and add fifty more. The pietistic preacher might manage to list fifteen things, while his associate pastor might concede thirty and all the deacons go with thirty-five items. So in the end what has the preacher really said about “rebellion” against authority? Would he admonish the men in his flock who go beyond his short list of twenty items as being rebels against God? Would he subject them to church discipline for thinking that way, writing or speaking in support of his views, or challenging the practice of his fellow church members? Without knowing for sure, I would not be surprised to see such an admonition transpire in modern churches. And one thing is certain if a preacher does so: his analytical inconsistency and poor exegesis have led him to cop-out when it comes to preaching the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27), leading him to act in a manner that does not promote the edification of the saints.
God ordains the state for various purposes. The three main reasons found in the Bible are (1) to show his glory and holiness (which obviously overrides all other factors), (2) to bring terrestrial judgment against a disobedient people, and (3) to sanctify His people. (Interestingly, the pertinent phrase “for good”, insofar as it relates to personal growth, occurs both in well-known Romans 8:28 and Romans 13:4 but nowhere else in the New Testament.) In addition, many preachers think that the state also exists to punish people that God thinks are bad and to reward those whom God thinks are good. However, this misapprehension of texts such as Romans 13:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 should be laid waste by the fact that neither Nero nor virtually any other ruler has done so.
We commonly hear from American pulpits today that most rulers are “just doing their best” as, alas, mere “imperfect and failing men”. But this sentiment is not true. On the contrary, rulers are generally evildoers in God’s sight who reward what they think is good and punish what they think is evil, regardless of what God thinks. That fact is borne out in the Bible’s theology, biblical history, other history, and supporting theories in scientific disciplines like economics. This fact should not be lightly shrugged off by preachers, although they often unwittingly do so.
God is telling the Roman believers (and us too) that (a) God has allowed the ruler to exist, (b) that the ruler has the power to punish or reward whom he hates or likes, and (c) that if we want to remain unscathed we had better submit to him when he gets in our face. That fact does not preclude self-defense, which the Bible allows, including defending ourselves against a malignant state—particularly when its rulers seek to enslave us and we can avail ourselves of an opportunity to become free (1 Corinthians 7:2124). Yes, in some cases, even ultimate “rebellion” to rulers (staging a revolution) can be just. An active role in social affairs and engaging our culture along with its public policies are part of the Christian’s role in having “dominion” over the world and “doing business” until Jesus returns (Genesis 1:26-28; Luke 19:13).
We must remember that God ordains Satan too. But resisting Satan is not rebellion against God, even when Satan is working through the state. Satan has used the state for his purposes often in recorded history, not only through men like Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh, but also through Nero and Domitian. For instance, the Bible speaks of Satan casting Christians into prison by means of rulers carrying out malignant public policies (Revelation 2:10). Satan also claimed (and Jesus did not dispute his assertion) to be able to give Jesus all the kingdoms of this world (Matthew 4:8; Luke 4:5)—all of which are said will vainly array themselves against Christ at the end of time. Indeed, we are specifically commanded, in fact, to resist Satan in spite of his authority (James 4:7; cf. Ephesians 4:27; 6:11; Jude 1:9). The state and, in general, its rulers, are hardly a “divine institution” to be revered and eventually redeemed by God—like the family and the church. They are ordained for temporal use in judgment and sanctification and then they will be sloughed off like a body’s dead skin cells.
So is rebellion against authority rebellion against God? Only when an authority’s decrees coincide with God’s; otherwise, rebellion against authority is only rebellion against the ruler that God has appointed. The reality of divine appointment does not elevate the state to an oracle of God that must be revered lest God frown upon us. Of course, any time a Christian has a rebellious attitude, acts foolishly, or behaves in a manner that does not glorify the Lord—within the context of states and rulers or otherwise— he rebels against God. But it is not right to say that, in general, most (or any) resistance or “rebellion” to the authority of the state is automatically rebellion against God.
I would like to encourage preachers (like the one I recently heard) to think about this theme a little more before jumping onto the modern, revitalized, and reshaped divine right of kings bandwagon. The holiness of the church and its effectiveness in the world are too important to simply throw off on account of a faulty public policy theology. And there are plenty of public policies that Christians should shun. The famous preacher C.H. Spurgeon liked to quote Solomon’s quip about the little foxes spoiling the vines (Song of Solomon 2:15). Let us help our pastors hunt foxes.
Originally published in The Times Examiner on February 22, 2006.
Tags: American Revolution, Bible, christian libertarianism, theology
This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course essays by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
I just heard the statement again from the pulpit: “Rebellion against authority is rebellion against God.” Nowadays, some of the greatest apologists for the state are preachers, who frequently invoke the Apostle Paul—himself a martyr due to state tyranny—in support of this notion. What a dramatic change from the “black robe” regiment of the Founding era, where preachers widely advocated and condoned civil disobedience!
In the preacher’s sermon the principal text was 1 Timothy 2:1-2, where the Apostle says: “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” Taking into account the overarching objective of personal salvation mentioned in the immediate context (verse 4), two reasons for praying for rulers are manifest: (1) that they might be saved from their sins and hell and (2) that they might leave us Christians alone in order that we may serve the Lord quietly and peacefully, along with being spared persecution.
Tags: American Revolution, Bible, christian libertarianism, theology
Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the 