Click here to get this post in PDF
Get a downloadable paper on this topic at the link below.
BJS DOC 007: http://meditationsonthesovereigngod.wejpub.com/for-the-stressed-out/donations-blogs-downloads/blog/
I’ve written a good bit about the corrupting of the civil justice system by defying the God of the bible. However, this particular writing discusses my concern about the corruption of the Church should it not discipline those members in its ranks who go along in their official duties with the corruption of the State. In other words, how does a Biblical Judicial System work within the Church and its authorized, biblical disciplinary system?
The following could be titled, “The Corruption of the Church by the State.” The thoughts represent to me the differing shades of “neutrality.” The pastor in this scenario advocates a neutrality in which the Church stays faithful to the word of God and an individual believer stays faithful to the word of God; however, in ceding a completely separate jurisdiction to the “civil kingdom,” it not only promotes a neutrality in that sphere but creates the opportunity for the civil kingdom to infect and corrupt the Church. If the Church does not properly and biblically address the issues in the civil kingdom and if it does not discipline its members, it will be infiltrated and be savorless salt, good for nothing but to be cast out on a dunghill.
For me, the hypothetical discussed proves that the Church must prophesy to, rebuke, teach, and disciple the state, the civil kingdom, the civil government, or whatever name you apply to the world of civil governance and law enforcement/protection of the citizenry. And the Church must discipline civil officials, who claim to be Christians, for exercising ungodly policies in that civil sphere. That means the Church must adopt a position on each public policy instituted and demand that the state follow the true Sovereign, that is, God Almighty, or the Church will become corrupted just as the state does when it defies God. The following paragraph begins a discussion with the pastor:
A critical, soft underbelly of the neutral, separate-kingdoms viewpoint of church and state is the infiltration scenario. Neutrality is not an option. Here’s an example.
Imagine a faithful church, like the church in Ephesus in Revelation 2. They love the Lord, they are faithful to His word, and they exercise their gifts to encourage and support one another and build God’s kingdom. Now imagine this church existing in the second century A.D. Let’s call it the 1st Church of Damascus. It’s a small church community existing in the same city as other small community churches. A hypothetical scenario exposes a problem.
One of the members of 1st Church happens to be a magistrate in Damascus; he has been appointed by the Roman Empire to his position. Let’s call him Pontius Festus. Based on a report from 2d Church of Damascus, the elders of 1st Church meet with Mr. Festus, and the following exchange takes place. “E” stands for the elders of their equivalent of a Congregational Care Committee, and “F” stands for Pontius Festus.
E: “Pontius, we wanted to speak with you about something very important. I’m grateful you’re willing to meet with us.”
F: “No problem, I love my church and respect my elders.”
E: “Well, we have this report that’s a little disturbing. We’ve been told by the elders of 2d Church that you had one of their members executed.”
F: “That’s correct, I did. How is that your business?”
E: “Can you tell us why? The report we received was that he was no murderer and not worthy of death.”
F: “No, he was not a murderer. He refused to sacrifice to the emperor and say that ‘Caesar is Lord.’ The law that has been passed down from Rome to me requires that he be executed.”
E: “But don’t you see that you’re partaking in the crime and sin which caused Paul the Apostle to call himself the chief of sinners? I Tim. 1:12-16.”
F: “But you, as representatives of the church’s spiritual kingdom, are questioning my actions as a representative of the civil kingdom, which is constituted by man’s wisdom and the playing out of providential events granting Rome power over the City of Damascus. Aren’t you straying out of your realm by questioning my actions as a civil ruler?”
E: “But you’re enforcing a pagan view of life, of God, of civil authority’s ability to demand that people worship a false god, and you’re defending an act of killing a fellow believer, a brother, who was exercising his faith by staying faithful to the true God, the God who saved us and gave His life for us as a result of an unjust trial of the Son of God.”
F: “So now you’re comparing me to Pontius Pilate and a providential event ordained from before the foundation of the world for the salvation of all those who believe! Aren’t you mixing apples and oranges? I don’t see my execution of that violator of the law as anything but obedience to the civil authority, which is ordained by God for our good according to the same Paul you quoted. Read Romans 13. I obeyed the authority; that is all.”
E: “But, Pontius, that same Paul was also under orders by the civil authority. He had been given an official charge by the chief priests of Jerusalem, his civil authority at the time, to come to this very city, Damascus, and arrest believers, cast them into jail, and have them executed. Yet, the greatest evidence of his conversion to Christ and submission to Him as Lord was his disobedience of that charge and a complete reversal, such that he became completely opposed to the chief priests’ agenda and became the greatest preacher of the gospel throughout the Roman world.”
F: “But I share the gospel. I’m not against that. I even pay my tithe, which is quite hefty and is probably sufficient to pay your salary. So, I see a big difference between what I did as the official performing this execution and what Paul was doing just before he was converted.”
E: “But this situation may be even worse. Our message, our call to the world is now quite muddied. How can a believer in Christ, in His Lordship, take part in and even order the execution of another believer for also believing in that Lordship such that he must refuse to call Caesar ‘Lord’ and sacrifice to the emperor? Won’t this confuse the world as to who is truly Lord and Savior?! And how would we even keep our own membership, when they know the persecuting official putting them to death is a fellow member, undisciplined, and arguing that his actions are not only justified but required by law?”
F: “I didn’t order him to deny his faith; I only executed him for not obeying the law. I obeyed the law, and he did not. His soul is in heaven now, and I have performed my duty in the civil kingdom of this world. Tell me how I’m a sinner, and do so without advocating violation of Romans 13. I could have had all of y’all executed, but I didn’t.”
E: “Are you saying that there exists such an absolute separation between the spiritual kingdom of the Church and the civil kingdom of the State such that the State need never submit to Christ’s Lordship?”
F: “I wouldn’t say ‘never.’ What if the Roman Senate and the Emperor both enacted a new law allowing worship of Christ and not requiring emperor worship?”
E: “Yes, that would be wonderful, but what about your conscience before God, who commands that we love our brothers and states that ‘As you’ve done it to one of the least of these, you’ve done it unto me?’ Then Christ casts those who neglected or persecuted His believers out of His presence, and he says, ‘And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.’ Matthew 25:46.”
It is somewhat understandable that the Roman Empire persecuted Christians; the Empire was preserving its constitutional and original way of life. The Christians were importing a foreign way of life into the life of that Empire, even if it was arguably the original way for mankind. But America is not the Roman Empire. America began as a Christian nation, if not at the time of the American Revolution, then at the time of the founding of the Christian Colonies, like Massachusetts Bay or Connecticut.
Therefore, as we become more pagan, we’ll see more of the above scenarios like those involving Pontius Festus. But how can any public official argue that they are complying with the law in accordance with Romans 13, when such persecution not only violates Christ’s law to treat “the least of these” like Him but is also contrary to the country’s original founding purpose and laws?!
Response from a Pastor to the above hypothetical:
Thanks for this. Very interesting and provocative. Couple of thoughts:
I agree with you on neutrality. Christ is Lord over both kingdoms…the difference is their jurisdiction, not their Lord. Further, their constitutions are derived differently as well since the civil kingdom has a different jurisdiction and because those that are involved in crafting the constitution are not all necessarily operating from the same worldview. This is not a problem for Christians because we know that natural revelation is in perfect harmony with special revelation so the they speak the same truth.
Under your scenario, however, I would argue that the civil official would be justified in either civil disobedience or in walking away from his responsibility (right to flee). And the civil authority is permitted to “fire” him for his civil disobedience. If he won’t do his job, he can be fired. They are not under obligation to allow every one of their employees to follow their own individual consciences if they are hired to do a job and their conscience won’t allow them to do the job. That would be insane. However, nor is the employee required to stay in that job. I should have said this last night, but the Church has always recognized the right of individuals to flee from persecution…when Christians are persecuted, they are not required (morally) to suffer it. They also have the option to flee persecution. This is why we welcome the “alien, stranger, refugee” – if Christians exercise their right to flee a persecuting or tyrannical government, we should provide refuge for them.
Response to Pastor’s Response:
Yes, agreed. That’s a given – flee or resign are options for a believer. But the “Christian” in my scenario apparently lacks a conscience on persecuting a fellow believer and sees no need to flee or resign. Like I said, I’ve thought about this a lot, but that scenario is new territory for my thinking.
I should have noted in my response above that we are not talking about “civil disobedience,” which is defined by Oxford dictionaries as “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest.” So I should have added to my response that today’s public officials in America swear an oath the Constitution, not their supervisor or higher authority or even the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not that way in the Roman Empire. Nor was it so in Nazi Germany, where every member of the Nazi Party swore allegiance to whom? Der Fuhrer, that is, Hitler the person. They did not swear an oath to the German Constitution or its laws. Yet, even though they obeyed their oath to Hitler by doing all the atrocities they did in his name, the post-WWII trials in Nuremberg held them to account for violating the higher law. Therefore, a public official who refuses to obey a higher official who is defying the law is not engaging in civil disobedience. That official is being obedient to the law and calling that higher official to account for his disobedience and rebellion against the law.
But to address your point, there can also be the added factor for the public official: What is my duty when there is more than one authority telling me what to do? In a federal republic, you can have multiple authorities speaking – State, local, statutes, regulations, constitutions, courts. What if one says to violate God’s law, but the other doesn’t? Why would you resign? Isn’t there room to work within such a system? Could you play two authorities against each other, like Paul did in Acts before the Sanhedrin? Which is the higher authority? What are my particular duties in my particular position? You can carry this further with many more questions.
Again, we are not the Roman Empire; we’re a federal republic with multiple authorities, not an emperor. We’re not a top-down hierarchy like an absolute monarchy or totalitarian state is; we’re a federal republic.
There’s something else at stake however. See below – something very brief on how the rule of law has been turned on its head and means today the opposite of its original meaning, making it worse than meaningless. Instead of an argument for liberty, it has become a club to use on people.
It raises still another question. Can a Christian public official stand for the law and against an authority that is abusing the law? Romans 13 speaks to authorities enforcing the law; it does not explain what to do when the authorities are violating the law. To use your example from last night, what if an official were to have a state trooper pull you over in your car and give you a ticket because you were wearing your seat belt? Hopefully, another official would step in to stop that rogue official from violating the law in such a flagrant and abusive fashion.
____________________________________________________________
The Rule of Law
The phrase, “rule of law,” is not a hammer over people to demand that they obey a higher authority. The phrase is a term of art and is an equalizer that historically was used by freedom lovers to demand that those in power not abuse their authority. For example, the founders of this country told a King and Parliament, the highest authorities over the American colonies and the authorities charged with issuing laws, that they had gone beyond their authority with respect to the laws they were issuing as to the colonies. The King and Parliament were not following the English Constitution, even though they claimed they were. Did the King and Parliament use the phrase, “rule of law,” to demand the colonists, their Continental Congress, and their judges comply with their edicts? Possibly, but that is not the American legal tradition, or at least, it used to not be. But understand this, it was the highest authority that was violating the rule of law, not the colonists who resisted that authority.
In other words, no matter your position, no matter how great your authority, you’re always subject to the rule of law. Lesser authorities and officials are not subject to the commands, rulings, edicts of those above them, if those higher authorities are not subjecting themselves to the law themselves. Their rulings are nullities, no matter how impressive their position. Those who argue that the rule of law requires lesser authorities to follow the edicts of those higher authorities simply because they are “the higher authority” are misusing the phrase, “rule of law.” No, they are turning it on its head. Heads we win, tails you lose is not the rule of law. That was the position of the King and Parliament in the 1700’s to attempt to place the American colonies under absolute rule. Those officials who resisted that tyranny could have been prosecuted by the Crown at that time, but we call them Patriots today.
____________________________________________________________
Further:
Below is a longer explanation re: rule of law.
To clarify something said earlier: Resignation can be dereliction of duty. If a public official is sworn to uphold the Constitution, the highest authority of our civil kingdom, and a higher authority demands betrayal of that document, then resignation is abandonment of the people who placed him in that position & betrayal of his oath.
Now I am referring to a specific public official, who doesn’t mind risking everything to stand up for the rule of law and the Constitution. And God’s law.
Having said all that, persecuting him, in my humble opinion, at this time, is a blessing & honor to him. Matt. 5:10. And anyone brought into his orbit of association.
Back to the abstract argument: What does it mean for the persecutors? And if the persecutors are members of a local church, what does that ultimately mean for that church? These are the issues that I am just now trying to get my head wrapped around. I am concerned these questions will soon become issues for churches. We might as well think about them now before they raise their ugly heads.
We live in dangerous times, times that could result in the damnation of souls for the sin Saul repented of on the Damascus road. But instead of an unbelieving Jew persecuting believers, it will be Christians persecuting believers. It happened during the Reformation; it can happen again. We must trumpet blast a clear warning to the flock, including those members who are public officials. I Cor. 14:8. If the church says, “It’s none of our business b/c it’s ‘civil’ stuff” or “It’s too difficult to understand,” then I fear not just for the state, but also for the church!
____________________________________________________________
Extended Explication of Modern Times & the “Rule of Law”
How to Make a Mockery of the Rule of Law
According to the western legal tradition, in 1215, the nobles of England forced King John and future kings into an agreement to submit himself to the laws and ancient liberties of England. The document was the Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter; it formed an early part of the written constitution of England. Another critical part of the English Constitution is the Bill of Rights of 1689. However, the English term “rule of law” wasn’t used until 1500 A.D. In 1610, the English House of Commons used it in a petition to King James I, stating that the land of England should “be guided and governed by the certain rule of the law which giveth both to the head and members that which of right belongeth to them, and not by any uncertain or arbitrary form of government.”[1]
Later in the seventeenth century, King James didn’t honor that principle that the “head” must follow the law like the “members.” The king’s response to the English Chief Justice, Edward Coke, was that it was “treason” to assert that the king was under the rule of law.[2] To which Coke said, “Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.).”[3] James’ successor, Charles I, made war on the House of Commons and his own people over that disagreement, and “the head” lost his head after being tried for violating the law. Another James, King James II, was deposed for attempting to reinstitute a similar rule later in the seventeenth century. In 1644, Samuel Rutherford wrote a book with a title that played a game with words, and that title says it all. Instead of the traditional phrase, “the king is law,” his Latin title, Lex, Rex, said, “the law is king.”[4] The bottom line? The rule of law means that even a king, whose word was considered law, must obey the law.
Parliament took over sole political sovereignty over the civil realm in the 1600’s. Over the next century, Parliament only grew in power. In the 1700’s, this cementing of Parliament’s power culminated in the English Parliament deciding it could exercise an authority over the British colonies, an authority that the colonists considered a violation of “the rule of law.” Our ancestors fought a war over that disagreement as to Parliament’s authority. Not just a king but also a legislature must be under the law. Notice that the executive, the king, was the first branch of government to which the British had to teach the rule-of-law lesson. The second was the legislative, which the American colonies taught the rule of law.
Thomas Paine wrote about the rule of law, and John Adams had it enshrined in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 so that State would institute “a government of laws and not of men.”[5] Other States followed Massachusetts’ example and enshrined words similar to these in their own constitutions. See for example the Alabama Constitution of 1901, Art. III, § 43.[6] It’s important to distinguish the rule of law from rule by law. According to political science professor Li Shuguang, “The difference . . . . is that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.”[7]
Historically, we have faced down the executive branch, Kings, seeking to exercise power beyond its authority and a legislative branch, Parliament, attempting the same. They attempted to tax the people beyond their authority, and they attempted to impose religious rituals on us. But I know of none that ever sought to impose an anti-God, anti-Christian regime upon us.
Relatively recently, the federal courts have told us such gems as: “Unborn babies are not protected constitutionally, but same sex sodomy is;” “Marriage is not limited to one man, one woman, no matter what the people, their constitutions, their law, even God, says.” The courts are supposed to remain neutral between the legislative and executive branches. What we didn’t foresee was the courts becoming their own entity and adopting their own personal, philosophical opinion antagonistic to the people, their constitutions, and the law itself. And why are we told that we must submit to such unconstitutional and lawless decrees? The shocked legal community responds: “Why because they’re judges, don’t you know!?”
In other words, we’ve come full circle. Their word is law, no matter how perverse and lawless it may be. Only it’s not a “King” issuing decrees and demanding obedience as if his word is law; it’s judges. And what threat do they hold over us? Have they “plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People”[8] like Parliament and King George before the American War for Independence? Have they attempted to create civil war within our borders, making war on their own people as King Charles I did?
No, they allowed predators within the legal community to institute lawsuits and bankrupt the States and public officials who stand for the rule of law against a tyranny of personal, religious opinion inculcated by higher education and the law schools that produce the “cream of the crop.” Those in the legal community have mocked those who stand for the rule of law and the rule of Almighty God, then turned around and accused those they mock of embarrassing the rest of us. They are like those whom Jesus described: “They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.” Luke 7:32.
Mockery and unlimited funding for organizations seeking to undermine the rule of law have succeeded where guns and invasion would have failed. If a foreign power had invaded us and imposed upon us a regime requiring the death of the unborn and a new, perverted form of marriage, we would have risen up as one and fought for our rights. But when it came from within and involved our reputations and our pocketbooks, we rolled over like sunbathers on the beach.
____________________________________________________________
Satanic Strategy:
I see Satan’s genius. Put together two things: A Church that does not stand for a biblical public policy in the “civil kingdom” realm & a State having a godless system of laws. You will have persecutors and persecuted sitting on the same pew. What person in their right mind would join and stay in such a church? It could destroy the church! What a scheme! It’s truly diabolical.
Or God could use it to force us out of our neutrality. That’s what I’ll believe happens.
That happens, or Islam, which claims no such neutrality and is unequivocally at war with abortion and homosexual marriage, takes over because the Church was derelict in its duty. An Islamic government would stop the godless from persecuting us and impose its own form of persecution – 2d class status. But it would at least preserve the family structure of society. Small consolation.
Again, God help us.
New Scenario Response:
Okay, so the executing of the fellow believer in the old Roman Empire isn’t quite contemporary enough. Here’s a more realistic hypothetical scenario for our day. (I use a judge the probate judges of my State and the circuit court judges are the first to have to deal with same sex marriage – the former with the certification of marriage, the latter with the break-ups.)
A mother sends a message from her jail cell to the pastor of her church and says, “Pastor, I need your help. Brother Jones, you know, the judge who attends our church, has ordered me to jail for disobeying his order.”
You say to yourself: “Oh brother, what does she want?” You investigate further and discover the following:
She caught her husband cheating on her – with another man. A divorce ensued, but because of what she discovered, the Mother began drinking a little too much alcohol. She became a not-so-stable parent in the eyes of the courts. Yet, her husband testified to the stability of his relationship with his partner and that they had plans to get married as soon as the divorce was finalized. Therefore, during the divorce proceeding, the judge, a member of the same church as the Mother, ordered primary custody of the two children, a 3-year-old girl and a 6-year-old boy, with the stable, same-sex couple. Normally, a court would give primary custody to the Mother, but the husband’s partner is a “stay-at-home-mom” kind of guy. (Before 2003 and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, a court in my State would have denied custody to the father for another reason – because of the ex-husband’s criminal lifestyle being damaging to the children.)
After this ruling, the Mother fell into a further downward spiral as a result of losing custody of her children and got hooked on pain meds instead of alcohol. She then was charged criminally and convicted of abuse of drugs. She could never get primary custody after that.A few months later, however, and with the help of the church’s counselor, she got her life back on track so that she could, at least, have visitation with her children. At those visitations, she taught them the bible. One day, she told them about Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 and that homosexuality is a sin.
The little girl, Sarah, says, “But, Mommy, isn’t that what Daddy does with Uncle Harold?”
Mother: “Yes, Honey, I’m afraid so.”
The kids return to the home of their father, and little Sarah tells Daddy: “Mommy, says you and Uncle Harold are living in sin.”
Six-year old Bobby pipes up: “Yeah, and you’re going to hell according to the bible!”
Ring-Ring, Telephone: Ex-husband says, “Hello, Attorney Smith, my wife is trying to turn my kids against me. We need to see Judge Jones right away.”
Judge Jones then heard the unrebutted facts of what happened and ruled against the Mother because she spoke contemptuously of her ex-husband by teaching the children the bible about homosexuality. Judge Jones ordered her to cease and desist or be held in contempt of court. At the next visitation, the Mother, a faithful bible-believing Christian after all the church counseling she had received, taught them even more of the bible about homosexuality.
Ex-husband went back to court and had her held in contempt and thrown in jail because she refused to swear she’d never teach such to the children again. Now she will not get out until she says she’ll stop according to Judge Jones’ order.
The Pastor confronts Brother Jones, the judge in the case, who says, “That’s the law of the civil kingdom; I’m just observing Romans 13 and I Peter 2 by obeying the authority over me, the highest court of our land. The mother is a sinner for not obeying my order, for I am her authority in this case! She’ll get out of jail when I am satisfied that she will not teach the children that the father is evil and cease trying to turn them against their father. Instead of confronting me, you should discipline her and tell her not to teach the bible’s view on homosexuality to the kids.”
Here are the possible responses from the Pastor:
Take your pick.
I know. No. 6 probably goes too far in telling the judge exactly what to order, but you get the point. Maybe revise No. 6 into something less intrusive, say, a recommendation from the Pastor that a repentant Judge Jones figure out the best way to make things right within his knowledge of the law of the civil realm over which he presides as a judge. But surely the condemnation should remain the same – violation of multiple aspects of God’s law and possible excommunication.
Otherwise, I imagine the exodus from this Church would have begun long before this meeting would have taken place. People hear things and would have known of this woman’s plight and said to each other, “If my Church isn’t going to do anything about this, that’s it! I’m outta here!”
How could the Church avoid being tarred as tolerating same-sex marriage and all its attendant evils if it allowed Judge Jones to remain a member in good standing? It would mean the corruption of not just the civil kingdom but the spiritual kingdom as well.
The Practicalities
Do the practicalities matter? Perhaps. Let’s consider them.
If No. 6 in Post 4 of the Corruption of the Church by the State, is the option chosen by a church, and assuming that Judge Jones repents and does what is lawful and right, then what happens? The ex-husband can appeal, and the appellate court might submit to the unlawful regime of a higher court and reverse the trial judge, Judge Jones. The appellate court would most likely remand for further proceedings, although it’s possible it could render a completely different result, depending on just how far from the so-called “law” Judge Jones may have strayed. Judge Jones would probably not face discipline from a judicial disciplinary body, like the JIC in AL, unless he ruled like this more than once. That might result in an accusation of “not following the law” by someone, which could lead to a trial before a Court of the Judiciary. Thus, the system, now governed by an illegitimate and lawless order, would cleanse the system of any righteous judge like Jones.
For the Mother, she’s helpless before the lawless system. Her children again are taken from her so that they can be raised by sodomites and become loyal citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, USA. The seed of the righteous get raised, trained, and sent out to spread the good news of licentious freedom instead of being raised to be a godly seed and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. This means the total corruption of a godly society.
Other than help Judge Jones repent and support him through whatever trials of judicial discipline he may face, what can his local church do? It can support other judges who want to be law-abiding and not kowtow to a lawless regime, it can help godly judicial candidates run for office, not only judicial but legislative and executive, in order to try to turn the ship around. It can prophesy to the godless system and promise God’s judgment. Judgment leads to repentance in God’s merciful economy. Kowtowing leads to judgment unto destruction of the entire system, church and state, for in that situation, all have submitted to Satan’s lawless rule.
The Church’s audience for all this seemingly futile raging against the machine is not the lawless authorities who defy the law, the constitution, and God. It’s the people who are squashed like a bug. Contrary to Lincoln’s quote about the government being by, of, and for the people, these “leaders” create a mirage. They lawlessly change things, then they say, “It’s the law, so obey it.” The media, which is supposed to be the watchdog exposing this lie, supports their actions and makes it appear “the American people” want it this way.
And who is to say otherwise, when nobody stands up and says, “The emperor has no clothes!” Thus, by being silent and allowing this coup in plain sight by saying, “Obey your authorities,” the Church becomes complicit in the takeover. Instead of taking a stand for a godly and law-abiding civil kingdom, it stands by and watches as the lawless become “the law.” At least, the prophets of the Old Covenant had enough grace toward the people and love for the truth that they told the civil “shepherds” where they failed by disobeying God’s law.
Here’s a question based on a hypothetical situation: Assume for a moment that the entire structure of old covenant Israel were to be so corrupt that it was “required” that all judges take a bribe (not a huge stretch of imagination when you read the prophets), would the one judge who refused to do so and obeyed God’s law be “disobedient” to the higher authority? Yes, that judge would be told that he was being disrespectful, defying the rule of law, etc. Isn’t that what Jezebel instituted in Israel? Or Athaliah, who cried, “Treason, Treason,” when she saw the legitimate law order reinstated by Jehoiada? I Ki. 18:40; I Chron. 23:13.
The Church’s audience is also Almighty God, who approved the disobedience of men like Daniel, Mordecai, Peter, and many others in the bible to the point that disobedience to a wicked authority could be the evidence of one’s faith and obedience to the true authority, that invisible God whom we claim to serve. We talk about Daniel’s courage, but do we praise those who exercise it today? Or will the Church train up public officials to be Pontius Pilates, who wash their hands of wicked acquiescence to a lawless, anti-Christ regime, saying, “I’m just obeying my authority; my baptismal oath as a Christian and my civil covenant oath to follow the Constitution are meaningless in light of my duty to obey the wicked when they happen to get into power through the providential events of history?”
What about the providential events of history that lead a Christian people to bring their lives and families, new institutions, and civil kingdoms here on our American shores and called them biblical? Are we supposed to ignore those events and say, “Normality is the rule by the wicked over the righteous.” Whereas David cried, “For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.” Psalm 125:3. (And No, it is not iniquity for the righteous who are ruling to obey the law and disobey the wicked! “Iniquity” in this verse could well mean violent revolution, something that disobedience could prevent, whereas acquiescence often leaves room for nothing but violence as an option because the society goes so far down hill and into tyranny.) Who are we going to follow? Those who advise defeat and compromise with the devil? Or David who always claimed victory? Christ is the Son of David after all.
A more modern example: You’re downtown and see a group of thugs beating up a woman and proceeding to rape her. A group of policemen is standing on across the street watching. You run to them and ask, “Why aren’t y’all doing anything?!” Answer: “Our higher ups told us not to intervene in gang rapes of women.” Would anyone attempt to defend such obedience to higher authority with a straight face? It would be dereliction, not obedience!
A foreign law order was brought into the nation of Israel contrary to God’s law order, and then everyone was expected to obey. It took the prophet Elijah to stand up and challenge Jezebel, and what did he do with her prophets? He had them executed. Surely execution of their prophets was not the “law” that was in place under Ahab and Jezebel’s reign. Yet Elijah assumed only one legitimate law order existed – God’s. It didn’t matter how many edicts that a wicked king or queen issued or even how long the new rule of law had been in place. It was illegitimate, and those officials who disobeyed such lawless orders did right before God and were blessed, and those who obeyed were judged along with the wicked authority which instituted it. Creating a right to same sex marriage that is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution and in defiance of the purpose of the Constitution, which was intended to limit the power of the federal government, not expand it – that’s not importing a foreign law order?
A foreign law order was brought into our nation by the very Court that is supposed to protect the Constitution when a majority of five Justices ruled in June 2015 in Obergefell. How is Jezebel instituting a Baal-worshipping legal system and demanding that all obey such laws any different from a lawless U.S. Supreme Court majority telling all judges to defy the constitution of the nation, the constitutions of the states, the law of marriage that has existed since the creation of this earth, and the law of God to institute an entirely new legal regime under the personal, moral, religious opinion of five Justices? So what is wrong with a judge following the law instead of following five rogue Justices?
The Lawful Way
Let us get this one fact straight. No matter what the legal profession, the compromised public officials, and the media say, the liberals, the progressives, the wicked, the proponents of perverting marriage and the Constitution, did not follow the lawful way to change the law.
The method for dealing with this issue by public officials like Judge Jones would be entirely different had the people of Alabama voted to amend the Alabama Constitution and create the new right to same sex marriage or if the Alabama Legislature had passed a statute creating such a marriage or if 37 states had amended the U.S. Constitution to require that all 50 states recognize such marriages. That would have been the lawful way to change the law. Such a change would have been terrible in the eyes of the Church and the bible-believing public official. It would have also demonstrated a paganism deep in the people requiring a commitment to a new evangelistic effort within the population. But that is not what happened. Perhaps in that situation, Judge Jones should have resigned and become a minister or recused himself from any case involving such a marriage.
Instead, the legal community has made a concerted effort within itself and publicly to advance the power of the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. It was a selfish advancement – to be able to pursue their agenda and to make money. You don’t make any money trying to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed in 37 states. It costs lots of time and lots of money. It took women at least 4 decades to get the Nineteenth Amendment passed. What a bunch of fools! They should have just gotten a lawyer to file a lawsuit arguing equal protection! What has changed since 1920? The legal community has become perverted in its understanding of what judicial action is, thereby undermining the initial purpose of having three branches within the civil government, and this change has resulted in the accumulation of power within the federal judiciary. And it hasn’t hurt their money-making ability either. “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge.” Luke 11:52.
In other words, the lawless have changed the law lawlessly, and we’re being told that we are the lawless ones for refusing to submit to a lawless regime. But if we submit or resign, we’re good little boys and girls and receive a pat on the head from these lawless ones. In secret they say to each other: “Good riddance. We want total control and no guff from anyone in our sphere!” And this is the Christian position? Give me a break! “A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.” Proverbs 25:26. Perhaps the demonstration of just how corrupt the Church’s view of public policy is the reason God has allowed all this to happen. Do we repent or continue to commit the psychotic error of trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? Actually, we try nothing at all. What do we expect?
Therefore, at this time, for public officials to resign or recuse when faced with an opportunity to expose the corruption and evil within the system and thus submit to and become complicit with such perversion of the legal system, the judicial process, and the rule of law is dereliction of duty, not an honest exercise of conscience.
As for the governing of the Church and the duty of its elders, the answer is staring us in the face. The Church can no longer say, “That’s a civil matter; it’s not within our jurisdiction.” To say that is to concede the field to the enemy, and the field is no longer the civil society or the state; it’s the Church itself. The civil officials charged by the higher authority to disobey the law and who consider themselves “following the law,” may sit in the pew, safely ensconced as a member in good standing. That official’s presence in the pew tells everyone that the Church is now irrelevant and cannot – because it will not – protect its own members from persecution or even mount a protest because “it’s a civil matter.”
Summing Up
My thought on this issue developed out of a pastor’s teaching about separation of church and state and also an email reply to an email I sent to him about that teaching and adding a wrinkle about which I had never thought before. The thoughts represent to me the differing shades of “neutrality.” I know that this pastor is against neutrality, but he seems to be advocating a form of semi-neutrality in which the Church stays faithful to the word of God and an individual believer stays faithful to the word of God; however, in ceding a separate jurisdiction to the “civil kingdom,” it not only promotes a neutrality in that sphere but creates the opportunity for the civil kingdom to infect and corrupt the Church. This semi-neutrality involves an avoidance of an issue which is “civil” in jurisdiction. Can the Church rebuke evil and use the entire governing power Christ gave to it – using its full authority – if that “civil” policy is evil according to the bible?
For me, the scenarios prove that the Church must prophesy to, rebuke, teach, and disciple the state, the civil kingdom or whatever name you apply to the world of civil governance. And the Church must discipline civil officials, who claim to be Christians, for exercising ungodly policies in that civil sphere. That means the Church must adopt a position on each public policy instituted and demand that the state follow the true Sovereign, that is, God Almighty, or the Church could easily become corrupted just as the state does when it defies God.
In other words, originally, I knew that the Obergefell opinion (on same sex marriage) would corrupt the entire legal system, judicial system, the bar, and the civil government, requiring Christian public officials to make a choice – between supporting a lawless, anti-Christ system or succumbing to pressure and claim that their official position is separate from their Christian faith. Thereby, they become enforcers of the anti-Christ system and by logical necessity, persecutors of other believers. I had not thought about its effect upon the Church until after listening to the pastor’s teaching.
What do we do? How do we prepare? I think it requires a paradigm shift in thinking. By the way, it proves R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, and other Christian Reconstructionists correct. The Church must address public policy in the civil sphere – unapologetically and with Church discipline, and there’s only one way to do it – with God’s word. Wikipedia mentions a few recent examples, attempted by the Roman Catholic Church with respect to abortion-supporting candidates like Joe Biden. Obviously controversial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_Catholic_politicians_who_support_abortion
After reading about it for years, I have never seen the reality of it so up-close & personal, nor so imminent.
This stuff is dangerous. Look at how divided society is today. Think about the 1800’s Church’s stance on slavery – it’s a civil matter & the NT doesn’t forbid it. That lead to a civil war. I’d rather we not have to go through that again with respect to the “culture war.” If we stay out of it, I’m afraid that’s what we get. You could argue it could happen if we get involved. I’d rather advocate a way out and fail than just let the status quo continue without objection. If we stand for His Truth, then maybe Christ can give us another way. If we don’t stand, will he allow it to become dangerous? Is that the historical punishment for a Church that stays out of the fray?
Application: Jesus & the Apostle Paul spoke of Church discipline
See Matthew 18, particularly verses 15-17: “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
See I Corinthians 5, particularly verse 13: “But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”
See Revelation chapters 2-3, particularly 2:5, which states: “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.”
The early Church exercised it, sometimes miraculously. In Acts chapter 5, a married couple conspired to cheat the Church into thinking they had contributed an entire piece of property, when they had held back part of it. Each one died upon hearing the words of the Apostle Peter describe their sin: “. . . thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” Acts 5:4d, KJV.
However, at this time, I think God wants to see if His Church will be responsible and exercise the disciplinary process they already know that they have.
Can we afford to make a distinction between the personal lives of believers and their professional lives? If a businessman were to engage in fraud regularly, would the Church consider such acts off-limits from discipline? Yet, the acts of public officials are allegedly off-limits. Why? Because of the fear of mixing Church and State. But the State prosecutes Church officials who engage in crime. The State has no qualms about applying criminal law to them. Why would the Church’s discipline be off-limits for public officials of the State? God doesn’t grant them immunity, for when they appear before His judgment seat, He will not hesitate to judge their professional acts, as well as their personal lives. If the Church were to seek to impose discipline upon them, then they might repent and thereby rescue their souls from a God-denying life in their professional lives.
The Church does a disservice to its members, the offending public official, the society, and God by not being willing to discipline those who defy God in their civil, public duties.
[1] Henry Hallam, The Constitutional History of England, Volume 1, p. 441 (1827), The Project Gutenberg EBook of Constitutional History of England,
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/39711/pg39711.txt, accessed on March 12, 2016.
[2] Wikipedia, The Rule of Law, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law, accessed on March 12, 2016.
[3] Wikipedia, ibid.
[4] Wikipedia, ibid.
[5] Wikipedia, ibid, quoting Massachusetts Constitution, Part The First, art. XXX (1780).
[6] “In the government of this state, except in the instances in this Constitution hereinafter expressly directed or permitted, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them; to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.” Section 43, Article III, Ala. Const., 1901.
[7] Wikipedia, ibid, quoting from Brian Tamanaha, On the Rule of Law, p. 3 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
[8] US Citizenship and Immigration Service website, The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/PDFs/M-654.pdf, accessed June 6, 2016.
Let’s Not Portray Jesus as a Fuzzy Thinker 70 AD Temple Destruction The phrase used…
The Bible’s doctrine of God’s creation of the universe out of nothing through the power…
Today’s preachers might tell David the following when he inquired about fighting Goliath in a…
Why The Universal Justice/Righteousness Scale for Mankind Changed After Christ Why The Universal Justice Scale…
Major Cage & Sergeant Rita Vrataski, played by Emily Blunt. Edge of Tomorrow - Download…
The sovereign God & rulership Foolish man chooses the rule of man over the rule…