THE BIBLE AND HUMAN GOVERNMENTS

Many people no longer think the Bible is relevant to today’s world, and it’s easy to see their perspective. For instance, how many ancient books provide suitable insights for how today’s societies should function? Regrettably, some even question whether anything written over 200 years ago can still be relevant (e.g., our Constitution). We are being led by some that think that if something hasn’t been recently written, then it should be ignored or impugned, and this is certainly their attitude towards the Scriptures. Nevertheless, the Bible is always relevant and recently I discovered a rarely mentioned passage that is essential for developing a biblical theology on human governance.

First, it’s necessary to quickly review two well-know passages that explain God’s purposes for government. One is Romans 13.1-9, which explains how Christians should respond to government. Paul wrote that believers should submit to their governments because God establishes them as instruments for good. Consequently, believers should pay taxes and honor to those in authority. Jesus himself said “. . . render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matt 22.21). Some might mistakenly assume that Paul was writing while a “good emperor” ruled the empire. However, the emperor in power as Paul wrote was none other than Nero, the one that would institutionalize Roman persecutions against Christianity. His declarations provided the legal basis for Rome’s ruthless campaigns against Christianity for the following 2 centuries. Nevertheless, Paul explained that the primary function of government was to protect its citizens from external enemies and internal criminals. Consequently, God provides governments with “the sword” in order to fulfill this responsibility. Paul, therefore, directed believers to “do good” and love their neighbors so that they would not fear their governments.

Did Paul know that at times governments would run amuck and diverge from their divinely mandated commission—of course! He certainly was aware of Israel’s past renegade rulers. Nevertheless, God revealed to Paul His intent for governments. That governments at times falter in their divine mandate is no license to oppose them. Does this mean that people should never revolt against tyrannical governments? Again, of course not, but understand that all governments possess “the sword,” so if one is going to overthrow an oppressive government, it will come at a cost of life. History is littered with examples of how hard it is to kill evil governments, so beware.

Another well-known passage is 1 Timothy 2.1-4, here Paul directed believers to pray for all people and especially those in positions of authority so that we may live “tranquil and quiet” lives in all “godliness and dignity.” Paul wrote that God views such self-interested prayers as acceptable. Why would these types of prayers be encouraged? Paul stated that peaceful societies provide opportunities for people to come to faith in Christ, to prosper, and to receive the “knowledge of the truth.” Does that mean that Christianity can’t spread during times of persecution—again the answer is no. Some of Christianity’s greatest expansions occurred during times of intense persecutions. Nevertheless, another divine function of government is to provide an atmosphere of freedom that allows people to live peaceful and self-directed lives where they can provide for their families and do good for those around them. Consequently, God is not offended that believers pray for their rulers so that they may lead peaceful lives; instead He encourages it for the purposes of evangelism and church growth.

These are some better-known passages that explain God’s purposes for governments. That being the case there is another passage that is indispensable to developing a comprehensive theology on human governance. The previous two passages assume benevolent governments; however, 1 Samuel 8.10-18 provides divine insight as to what all governments inevitably become, which is greedy and oppressive. Its greater context is Israel’s rejection of God as their “ruler” and their request for a “king.” The prophet Samuel responded by explaining the inevitable result of their request, which was that their king will take their sons, daughters, their servants, their taxes, and their fields. In short, Samuel warned that their future kings will confiscate the “best” from the people; and eventually the people will become “servants” of their kings (vs 17). While people long for governments that protect their rights; regrettably, sooner or latter rulers are driven by their own lusts, and inevitably turn their citizenry into slaves. As Lord Acton asserted, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”; and as the Bible warns, those in positions of political control always covet more power.

If you think that Samuel’s warning applies to only monarchies, then you need to brush up on world history. Here God has provided for us the inevitable trajectory of all governments, whether they are monarchs, socialistic, communistic, democracies, empires, aristocracies, dictatorships, parliaments, republics, or any combination of them. No matter how noble the initial intent for any government, or how well conceived its charter, in the long run it all will oppress its citizenry. And why is that? It’s because people are systemically sinful (Rom 3.10-18), and all governments are run by people. As time and weather erodes all fortresses, evil people incrementally erode the good within governments by promoting themselves, and while ascending they grab more power in order to entrench themselves in positions of authority. As Jesus himself observed, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them . . . .” (Luke 22.25).

The Scriptures are certainly relevant with respect to a realistic philosophy of human governance. They explain God’s purposes for government, as well as why all governments inevitably fail. Many are deceived into believing that somewhere there is a perfect form of government. One that is just and fair, one that has all the answers, and will provide for all of their needs with equity. Such a perspective is unrealistic and lacks wisdom. I’m of the opinion that a democratic Republic that recognizes and protects our inalienable God given rights is best. But I understand that no matter how hard we try to control governments, in the end they will ultimately control us. No one should be surprised at this outcome; this inevitably is because Satan knows the value of using sinful humans to achieve his ends. If he can control those that lead us, then he will exponentially maximize his evil influence upon entire nations and cultures. Regrettably, scripture foretells of a future global government that will be inspired and influenced by him, and it will monopolize the distribution of essential resources while demanding fanatical devotion from the world’s population to its titular human leader—the Antichrist. Any that reject him will be either executed for treason or relegated to a life of abject poverty (Rev 13.1-17; 2 Thes 2.3-10). Does this future certainty mean that believers should not participate in current governments? Not at all. It only means that we should have a biblical perspective for all forms of government. Specifically, that they all eventually fail, and inevitably one will be the vehicle by which satanically driven people will once again seek to extinguish the people of God. But thanks be to God that the Lord will sovereignly intervene on our behalf. On that wonderful day “the government will rest on His shoulders and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, . . .” (Is 9.6-7). May He come quickly.

Copyright @ 2021 Monte Shanks

Read Full Post »

Why Christianity Today Is Unchristian with Respect to Their Defamation of Political Leaders

 

The Bible addresses how Christians should engage political leaders in the public arena, as well as how they should intercede on their behalf while in private. Nowhere does Scripture call Christians to condemn unbelievers and political leaders, or to publicly label them as “immoral.” In fact, Christians are instructed in the New Testament to submit to their leaders and not rebel against them (Rom 13.1-5), and to pray for them without anger or disputing (1 Tim 2.1-3, 8). Lastly, we are called to respect and honor our leaders (1 Pet 2.13-17). The Scripture never releases Christians from their responsibility to seek the welfare of their leaders, much less to publicly defame them. Moreover, the biblical model of godliness found in God’s word is that when discussing or interacting with our leaders and rulers, we must do so with humility and respect.

One only needs to look to Daniel and the respect he displayed toward King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2.26-47. Nowhere did Daniel make mention of the king’s indiscretions or call for his removal. And what were those indiscretions, only the pillage and destruction of Daniel’s nation and the brutal murders of 1000s of Daniel’s countrymen. Moreover, that very same king continued subjugating all Judean survivors within his realm, even attempting to erase their Jewish heritage and religion. Nevertheless, while Daniel spoke truth to the king, he did so with respect and humility, all without calling attention to the king’s “character flaws” or rebelling against his authority by calling for his removal. And again, when King Darius asked Daniel if God had saved him from the savage animals that Darius himself had condemned Daniel to, Daniel’s response was “O king, live forever!” (Dan 6.21). Daniel, of course, could have taken the opportunity to impugn the king’s decision-making capacities, his inadequate sense of justice, or his woeful spiritual condition. But he didn’t, instead he blessed the king, the very one that lacked the moral fortitude to do the right thing and instead unjustly sentenced Daniel to death. Similarly, when Paul making his case before Felix he addressed the governor with respect (Acts 24.10), and again the same is true when he gave his defense before King Agrippa (Acts 26.2), neither of whom were paragons of virtue and ethics. And lest we forget, what of David, a man that God had anointed to replace King Saul, how did David model a godly attitude toward Saul? He refused to defend himself and take Saul’s life when given the opportunity, even as Saul was actively seeking to murder him. Nevertheless, David displayed respect towards Saul, both verbally and physically by bowing himself in Saul’s presence (1 Sam 24.8). None of these godly people publicly slandered their rulers, but now CT has.

The model of godliness and the command of Scripture is that Christians should seek the good of those who rule over them, and not to rebel or impugn them in spite of their political and/or moral failings. Should Christians speak truth to power when given the opportunity? Yes! Can Christians seek new leadership through the voting process if they become dissatisfied with their politicians, of course! No one is questioning these prerogatives. What is questionable is whether CT understands biblical instructions concerning how to discuss and interact with our leaders, or whether its editors consistently applies these biblical mandates, and most importantly, does the magazine appropriately reflect authentic Christianity that has once and for all been delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Concerning these questions, the answer is clearly no.

The reality is that if CT wanted to be consistent, then it would have been calling for the removal of our nation’s presidents since the magazine’s inception because they all have had moral failings, whether they were personal infidelities or with respect to their policy decisions. It’s not as if Clinton’s or Trump’s failings are worse than previous presidential failings. Why was CT silent as Johnson deepen our country’s involvement in the Vietnam War—a war that cost 50,000 American and countless other Vietnamese lives. And where was CT’s call for the removal of President Obama when he began advocating for gay marriage and advancing pro-abortion Supreme Court nominees? It would make more sense to confront Obama because he claimed to be a Christian. Regarding Trump, however, I know of no such claim, and apparently he is not an active member of any local church. Or why was Clinton’s infidelity and perjury only worthy of a public call for his removal. His appointment of Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg was far more damaging to the pro-life cause then anything else he did.

Regrettably, all that CT has done is to take a side in a partisan political brawl. They justify their decision by claiming the high road on the grounds that their choice is guided by moral necessity. They are wrong, and here are the facts as to why they are wrong. The Democrats claim that the president abused his power by asking a foreign power to interfere with our nation’s “sacred” election process, as well as obstructing Congress’s investigation of him. There are several objective facts as to why they are incorrect, and why this is a partisan sham. First, our nation has been investigating foreign interference in the 2016 election for over 2 years, that was the focus of Mueller investigation. Our country is now well versed in the appropriateness of such investigations. Second, even the New York Times reported that Ukrainians were involved in efforts to interfere with our 2016 election. Political actors within Ukraine aided President Trump’s political opponents in an effort to undermine the Trump campaign. Consequently, candidate Trump was not the perpetrator of these efforts, he was their victim. Third, our country has a bilateral treaty with Ukraine that ensures cooperation with one another while investigating matters of corruption whatever realm may be. Fourth, our president is the commander and chief; consequently, he has a responsibility to seek cooperation from allied countries as we investigate matters of political or economic corruption. More importantly, if the president learned of possible corruption with respect to policy actions or foreign interference in our elections, and then chose to ignore them, then that would be a dereliction of his presidential duties. Fifth, ex-Vice President Biden bragged about blacking mailing a foreign ally with respect to its investigation of his son. The fact is that Joe Biden demanded that the Ukrainian Government fire the lead investigator of his son, and if it refused, then he would ensure that US aid would be withheld from it. That Biden may be President Trump’s future political rival is irrelevant. Our country can’t have our leaders black mailing our allies over matters for their personal benefit.

Ironically, that is what Democrats claim President Trump has done, but to date there is no objective evidence, whether in writing or by firsthand testimony that President Trump did what is claimed. Consequently, the current impeachment effort is partisan maneuver, and the fact that a few Democrats crossed have the isle and voted against it, while no Republicans voted for it reveals it for what it really is, an obvious partisan abuse of congressional power. It is purely a political attack, plain and simple. And with respect to obstructing Congress, all the President has done is make use of his constitutionally guaranteed executive rights, something that countless of the presidents have done in the past. The Supreme Court has repeated recognized that the use of constitutional rights to one’s advantage is neither wrong nor unethical. And now CT has taken a political side in this national embarrassment.

The reality is that CT was wrong in its treatment of President Clinton, and it is again in the wrong with respect to President Trump. If CT wants to engage political activism, then fine, but it should change its name. Frankly, I have long since stopped caring about what CT covers. I stopped valuing CT when it began promoting a watered-down cultural Christianity instead of authentic Christianity. It is obvious that this is the magazine’s focus because CT often honors and defends non-Christians and heretics in a spirit of ecumenicalism while impugning, mischaracterizing, and even mocking authentic Christians. Christians that believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, that defend the orthodox Christian faith, and that are actively evangelizing a lost world for the cause of Christ. CT’s founder was Billy Graham, he was arguably one of the Evangelical church’s most beloved evangelist and spokesman. I’ll let the Graham family speak at length concerning its patriarch, but to be blunt, Reverend Graham would never have engaged in publicly defaming any president. Pray for them, yes! Join a partisan rebellion to have any unjustly removed, no. CT’s call for the removal of the president has not only resulted in a public firestorm, but has also divided Christians against one another. Moreover, the magazine’s actions are contrary to clear biblical instructions outlining Christian behavior and ethics towards their leaders. Consequently, CT’s marketing of itself as “Christian” is quite simply hypocritical.

Read Full Post »