Government, though tainted with sin, does not derive from it.  Even if sin were never to have entered into the world, it can be reasoned that a form of government would have been necessary.

Consider the following.

Genesis 1.28 and 2.15 has been called the cultural mandate by many. In clearer words, not only is the creation of mankind observed in these passages, so too are four other facets: filling, subduing, working, and keeping.  As mankind would have pursued these activities, a form of government would have naturally developed over time (Smidt, The Principled Pluralist Perspective, 130).

In quoting at length from Steve Monsma’s Healing for a Broken World: Christian Perspectives on Public Policy, we read,

But even in a perfect world, as Adam and Eve’s descendants multiplied and filled the earth, there would have had to have been some means to create rules that would have made it possible for human societies to develop and for people in them to live together in order and harmony.  There would have had to have been a way to regulate trade and commerce, probably including the creation of money, a way to decide jointly where cities should be located and to organize the different sections of the cities, and, once automobiles had been invented, something as simple as deciding on which side of the     roads people should drive.  Even in a sinless world, as human beings developed all the possibilities God had placed in his creation, some society-wide policies would have to have been established.  This means government – even if the governments and processes of making decisions would have looked very different from what we find in governments today (35-36).

Governments derive from God’s good created order, not sin.  Understanding this allows us to perceive a more positive view of government than if it would have found its roots in sin.

The state not only restrains evil, it also has a more positive role of creating an environment by which people can best work together in mutual respect and harmony.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Wayne Grudem

In an article from the Christian Post, I read of Wayne Grudem, Professor, Author, and Speaker, conducting a tour in the United Kingdom calling upon Christians “to stand against threats to the Gospel by engaging in politics and increasing their influence on government.” 

The entirety of the article is great; however, I would like to draw your attention to the following importance for Christian engagement in governmental affairs:

He said God was calling Christians in the U.K. to “stand against evil” and “threats that would silence the Gospel and remove it from the public square,” particularly laws passed in recent years promoting homosexuality and attempts to loosen existing abortion regulations…

He pointed to the proliferation of secularist campaigns in the U.S. aimed at forcing Christians to confine their religion to the home, including campaigns to silence public prayers,                               lawsuits against the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings and courtrooms, and moves to prevent schools from using church buildings.

Such secularism, he warned, “threatens the voice of the church and the voice of Christians” and “removes from government God’s teaching about good and evil.”

“How can government officials rightly serve God if no one is able to let them know what God expects of them?” he asked.

Such a position, he continued, “either assumes there is no God or that His morality is unknowable, or that it is not important for human beings.”

If secularism wins the day, he warned, it will “remove from an entire nation any sense of absolute moral standards” and result in the “destruction of belief in God.”

I’ve written on this very topic myself in a post titled Does Political Involvement Impede Evangelistic Efforts

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Apparently it’s illegal to share the gospel on a public sidewalk in the United States of America.  Having problems embedding a video right now, so click here for the video link to The Heidelblog.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

[The following is an outline from Dr. Wayne Grudem’s presentation Christians and Politics: Five Wrong Views.  You can stream and/or download the mp3 to this message here].

Nations should value patriotism

Biblical reasons for patriotism (Acts 17:26; Gen. 12:2; Gen. 22:18; Gen.10:32; Job 12:23; Rom.13:1).

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors . . . (1 Peter 2:13-14).

Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed (Rom. 13:7).

My son, fear the Lord and the king, and do not join with those who do otherwise (Prov. 24:21).

Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, nor in your bedroom curse the rich (Eccl. 10:20).

Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon . . . . Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare (Jer. 29:4-7)

Nations divide and disperse government power throughout the earth

The signers of the U. S. Declaration of Independence realized that they were establishing themselves as a separate nation:

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitled them, it is respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The benefits of patriotism in a nation

1. A sense of belonging to a larger community of people
2. Gratitude for the benefits that a nation provides
3. A shared sense of pride in the achievements of other fellow-citizens of the same nation
4. A sense of pride for the good things that a nation has done
5. A sense of obligation to serve the nation and do good for it in various ways
6. A sense of obligation to live by and to transmit to newcomers and succeeding generations a shared sense of moral values and standards

[Question: Should Christians value patriotism?]

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

[The following is an outline from Dr. Wayne Grudem’s presentation Christians and Politics: Five Wrong Views.  You can stream and/or download the mp3 to this message here.  For my own personal reflection on Dr. MacArthur's position, click here].

“Do evangelism, not politics”

Dr. John MacArthur

Though this view is expressed often in personal conversations, the writers who tend in this direction qualify their statements by affirming the appropriateness of some political influence by the church, though they argue it will not do any spiritual or eternal good (Cal Thomas, John MacArthur.  See Why Government Can’t Save You)

Too narrow an understanding of “the Gospel” and the kingdom of God

Mt 28:19-20:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

The “whole Gospel” includes a transformation of society

1 John 3:8:

The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

Which parts of the Bible should the church not preach about?

God leaves Christians here on earth both to do evangelism and to do good for others

Galatians 6:10:

So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Ephesians 2:10:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Matthew 5:16:

In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

God established both the church and the government to restrain evil

Christians have influenced governments positively throughout history

The spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for:

• Outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374)
• Outlawing the gladiatorial contests (in 404)
• Outlawing the branding of criminal’s faces (in 315)
• Instituting prison reforms (in 361), stopping human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, the Lithuanians, and the Aztec and Mayan Indians
• Outlawing pedophilia
• Granting property rights and other protections to women
• Banning polygamy
• Prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829)
• Outlawing the binding of young women’s feet in China (in 1912)
• Initiating public schools in Germany (in the 16th century)
• Advocating compulsory education of all children in many European countries
• Opposing and often abolishing slavery in the Roman Empire, Ireland, most of Europe, and the US (more than 2/3 of the abolitionists in the US in the mid-1830’s were Christian clergymen)
• The formulation of the Magna Carta (1215)
• The formulation of The Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution of the United States (1787)

But won’t political involvement distract us from the main task of preaching the Gospel?

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

In a recent article from Time, Amy Sullivan highlighted many characteristics of Young Evangelicals, especially in relationship to their work in education with the underprivileged through such groups as Teach for America.

In this article there were some things that perplexed me (ex. Young Evangelicals are politically and theologically conservative, yet favor Same-Sex Civil Unions) and one thing that concerned me: The blurring of government and church relationships.

At one point in the article, Ms. Sullivan quipped:

They [Young Evangelicals] are the faith-based generation, having grown up with George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives and the assumption that it is right and good for government to partner with religious organizations. “We need all hands on deck,” Obama declared in a 2008 campaign speech about faith-based organizations. For young Evangelicals, all hands on deck includes the government.

Ms. Sullivan further said,

An October 2008 poll by Public Religion Research showed that by a margin of 21 points, young Evangelicals were more likely than older ones to favor expanding government to provide more social services.

My concern with the partnership of the church with the government is this: The government will require the church, and Christians, to compromise.

I’ve written elsewhere that not all compromises in the political process are bad or sinful, especially with individual involvement.

The reason that I’m concerned with the apparent Young Evangelical acceptance of government involvement and expansion is the likely loss of our distinct Christian witness and identity.  If we were to simply survey the lay of the land we would readily see that the government has already encroached on individual liberties and continually attempts to infringe upon the rights of the church through various means and policies.

As a Young Evangelical I strongly caution my fellow brothers and sisters to use a high-level of wisdom and discernment as you look to exercise the compassion of your heart in doing good to your neighbor in partnership with the government.  It is the role of the church, not the government, in doing socially good both physically and spiritually.  It is the role of the church to extend the call of the Gospel and a hand of assistance to those in need.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

When contending for the influence of Christianity in determining legislation I often here people quip, “You can’t legislate morality” or “Religion and politics shouldn’t mix.”  On the surface these sound like reasonable arguments.  However, when we think reasonably about these points-of-view we’ll see that their bankrupt positions. 

Why?

Well, as we’ll see below, nearly every law has a religious or moral underpinning.

What’s the moral of the story? 

When someone responds to me in that way they typically mean that we can’t pass legislation from a Judeo-Christian Worldview, but theirs.  All-in-all their words are a means to divert attention away from their personal desires.  

The following is from Garrett DeWeese and J.P. Moreland’s Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult (pg. 84).

It is often said that you can’t legislate morality.  But in fact virtually all legislation is based on some moral principle. 

Traffic laws?  A well-ordered traffic flow reduces injuries and deaths, and to seek such a reduction is a morally praiseworthy goal. 

Criminal law?  Virtually all criminal law rests on moral principles such as “do not steal,” “do not lie” and “do not kill.” 
Tax law?  Given that some government is necessary for a peaceful, well-functioning society, and given that government costs money, even tax law can, at least in theory, be traced to moral principles.

Now some laws are matters of convenience rather than morality (e.g., laws regulating the size, shape and weight of letters which can be mailed without excess postage).  And some laws codify prudential or pragmatic judgments rather than moral principles (e.g., laws prohibiting parking at certain times along a street to allow for street sweeping). 

Still, for the most part, law and morality go far together, so that in most cases a lawbreaker is also morally blameworthy for the act. 

 

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

One of my intents with Reformed and Reforming is to contend for the reformation of all of life by directing every facet of life and society in submission and obedience to God.  God’s work on earth is not limited to our inner life, but includes the reformation of our heart, thought, actions, and society itself.  In the end, it will not only be individuals that are redeemed, but the very earth itself (Rom. 8.18-25; Rev. 21.1).

It is for this reason that we are to contend for the reformation of economic systems.  With this in mind, I refer you to Richard Doster’s piece in byFaith Magazine entitled Christianity and Capitalism.  The following are some of his introductory remarks.

According to David Hall and Matthew Burton, authors of Calvin and Commerce: The Transforming Power of Calvinism in Market Economies, it was John Calvin himself who laid the foundation for today’s market-based economy.

As Calvin’s theological heirs we know that economic decisions, like those in every category, stem from a worldview. They reflect our values and fundamental view of man, and while the Bible doesn’t prescribe a particular economic system it does, Hall and Burton tell us, provide a moral framework within which to make our choices. As Christians, our challenge is to recognize and—to the extent we’re able—create the system that fits best with what the Bible teaches.

So, in a fallen world that’s populated by sinful people, what realities should an economic system address? What good should it aspire to? And what truths—about God, man, and money—should be brought to bear? The answers could (and do) fill books. For now we’ll glance at six features of a realistic, healthy economic system.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

Here is something I found at Christian Answers on Christians role and responsibilities to the government of the U.S.  I’m not acquainted with this website, but I really liked what they had to say here.  I’ve been preaching the same thing for quite some time and am glad to see that others have made similar observations.  Now I don’t feel so alone.

There are numerous perspectives on why Christians should be involved in the political process: duty, responsibility, natural leadership, love of our brothers and sisters, a basic compassion for mankind, etc. One perspective that too often goes unnoticed is the concept of submission to government. Submission to our governing structures requires participation.

As Paul wrote to the Romans: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13:1 NIV). The first seven verses of this chapter provided a fundamental blueprint for the relationship between the Christians in Rome and the existing governing authority—the power of Rome. The Roman Christians exercised no political power in the secular order of things; participation was extremely limited.

As Christians today, we look back upon Paul’s letter, and other portions of Scripture (Mark 12, I Timothy 2:1-3, Acts 5, etc.) to determine our own relationship to government.

Americans enjoy certain rights and liberties that would seem foreign to early Christians. Therefore, trusting that God offers Biblical provision for our modern situation, we apply the principles He has given. As we read in Romans, one of those principles is submission to governing authority.

In the American governing system, submission demands participation. Why, you may ask? Whether they like it or not, American citizens are participants in the American governing structure. No one is exempt from this participation. Citizens are assessed taxes; they are counted in the Census; they are in government computer systems at all levels; they send their children to government-run schools; they are, in one way or another, participants in the government.

Working from the premise that we are all participants, political involvement is not a matter of seeking “power.” It is a matter of being fairly represented as we participate in government. As we participate, we have the opportunity of voting for our elected officials and of ensuring adequate choices as we vote. If we truly believe our government was divinely ordained and instituted, this luxury and opportunity should be enjoyed and exercised.

[Question: Does understanding our fundamental role to the Government help in understanding your role and responsibility with the government of the U.S.?]

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

Dr. Richard Kyle, Professor of History and Religion at Tabor College, wrote an excellent article on the convergence of Reformed and Anabaptist attitudes towards government.  I was excited to have found this article having developed similar positions of my own.

In a general gist, the Anabaptist/Mennonite position has been one historically separated from worldly powers, whereas the Reformed tradition has taken a transformative approach of worldly powers, bringing them under the sovereign reign of Christ (Col. 1.16).  What Dr. Kyle- as well as myself – has noted the convergence of these two formally distinct approaches.  Read his thoughts below.

By now, however, the Mennonite and Reformed traditions are in transition, with the forces of North American culture pushing both views closer together. Most importantly, the state itself has changed since the sixteenth century. The fact that the citizens themselves are part of the political process in a western democracy makes the withdrawal approach problematic at best. In fact, non-participation is in itself a form of political involvement, if only by default.

Historically, the primary function of the state had been the maintenance of law and order, which requires the use of force.  This task is still important, but modern democracies also provide humanitarian, educational, and social services.  These non-coercive functions help to reduce one of the major objections given by the withdrawal groups for participation in government…Western democracy, which allows for political pressure by religious groups, has pushed church-state patterns toward the transformationist model. This pattern works well in a culturally and religiously pluralistic democratic state.

More specifically, the Mennonite Brethren have moved in the years since World War II from a withdrawal model toward a moderate transformationist position, adopting a position of “selective participation” in politics. This new stance certainly has not opened the door to wholesale political participation, but civic attitudes and practices indicate that Mennonite Brethren are accepting many political positions that are normally associated with the Reformed tradition.

This should not conceal the fact that deep differences exist between the Anabaptist and Reformed attitudes toward civil government.

Although there are noted differences between the Reformed and Anabaptist Traditions, there is much that we can learn from each other.  In fact, I’ve been doing my own reading in the Anabaptist Tradition recently to mine a different perspective on Reformed Positions, especially in relationship of Christianity with culture, war, community, and government.

This is a great article and I commend it to you in providing a great balanced approach in the relationship of Christianity and Democracy.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post