I have been working on a book for nearly 1 1/2 years now on Christianity and Democracy.  Below are several links to some things that I have already written with much more coming in the near future.  The book is nearing completion and I would like to have it done by May, but realistically with family, work, and school, it will probably take much longer than than. 

The following blurb is from my introductory post below:

What will follow over the course of the next several weeks is not an endorsement or slander of any president – past or present – political party, or public policy.  This will not be an extensive treatment of political theory or a historical treatise on the relationship between the church and state. What will follow will be much simpler than this.

What follows will be a call, a call to Christians.  A call to stand-up and fulfill our societal obligations by engaging the Democratic process of the United States of America distinctly as believers and followers of Jesus Christ.

This is a call to those are who are currently disengaged or disenfranchised with the political process.   This is a call for you to prayerfully consider – or even reconsider engaging.

This is a call to those who are currently engaged in the political realm.  Regardless if you are a conscientious voter, lobbyist, Pastor, or legislator, this is a call for you to prayerfully consider if your involvement is truly God-honoring, Christ- exalting, and Spirit empowered.

 Christianity and Democracy Posts:

Christianity and Democracy: An Introduction

Christianity and Democracy: Submitting to the Existing Form of Government

Christianity and Democracy: Submitting to the Existing Form of Government, Part 2

Christians have an Obligation to be Involved within the Democratic Process

Should Christians be Primarily Concerned with Evangelism and not Public Policy?

Does Political Involvement Impede Evangelistic Efforts?

Compromising in the Political Realm: How Christians can Learn to Rightfully Compromise in Policy, not Conviction

Where’s the Love in Christianity and Politics?

Expressing Love in the Democratic Process

The Government’s Authority is Limited, not Final

Faith and Government are not Mutually Exclusive

Political Leaders do not have the Final Say: The Limited Role of the Government is Affirmed in both the Old and New Testament’s

Moving Forward in Politics from Historical and Contemporary Mistakes

 

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

Consider sharing this post:

From NPRs Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett (Evangelical Politics: Three Generations):

In a live event, Krista interviews Evangelical leaders from three eras: Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne. We take you inside a passionate discussion unfolding among these communities, who are questioning the place of religion in politics.

A passionate discussion is unfolding in public and in private among Evangelical leaders and communities. Should Christians be involved in politics and if so, how? What has gone wrong, and what has been learned from the Moral Majority up until now. In this live public conversation, Krista probes these ideas with three formative Evangelicals.

I enjoyed listening to this segment so much, that I did so three times.  It’s very interesting to hear all three of these gentlemen speaking on the same topic from such different perspectives (Although it could be argued that Boyd and Claiborne share somewhat similar positions).  Not only did these gentlemen engage this issue on the mic, they have also written their own books on the topic as well (Again, Boyd and Claiborne arrive at similar conclusions).

Unfortunately, the title of the segment insinuates that these men represent their respective age group.  Perhaps this is the case with Colson, but I doubt this is the case with Boyd and Claiborne apart from a small, but growing, pocket of separatists and monastics.  In my own personal non-scientific research it appears that many are now looking to influence politics and the greater culture for Christ.

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

Consider sharing this post:

In Political Leaders Do Not have the Final Say, I addressed that any government’s existence, necessity, and authority is temporal and limited.  Although this is the case, many Christians have failed to grasp this reality.  In light of this, Daryl Hart, author of Secular Faith, remarked,

The Achilles heel of many Christian politicians, American or not, has been the failure to recognize the impermanence of secular politics, that it is a temporary arrangement to restrain evil and promote justice until the dawn of a new period in the history of salvation (pg. 41). 

Not only is this the case, but speaking in general terms, it is known that some have fallen victim to placing an excessive dependence upon political reform and have used excessive power and ungodly tactics in ascertaining their position.  It is for these reasons why some Christians may deny political involvement or speak against those who are involved. 

Even though these instances have blackened the eye of Christianity in certain respects, they do not merit Christians to retract from obeying the will of God in submitting to our form of government.  This is why Daryl Hart continued by, saying, “Even though the politics of the earthly city may proceed from selfishness or irreligious motivation, its authority is still legitimate and something in which believers may participate.”  

So, the question that begs to be answered is this, “What are we to make of these historical and contemporary examples?” 

In response, it is wise for us to heed the sound advice of Stephen Monsma and Mark Rodgers, who said:

… history also teaches Christians to move into active political engagement only after careful reflection and much prayer.  This is not an area to rush into with maximum of enthusiasm and good intentions and a minimum of thought and planning (Toward an    Evangelical Public Policy, pg. 326). 

This is why as Christians; our submission to the governing authorities of America should be marked with a high level of humility.  Not only because of the lessons of history, but due to the difficulties of applying basic principles of the Bible to contemporary policies and situations (ibid., pg. 329). 

As Christians we are not to be plagued with a high level of inactivity, we are simply to move forward with a high level of humility, love (link with post on love), empathy.  In clearer words,  “do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own interests, but also for the interests of others” (Philippians 2.3-4). 

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

Consider sharing this post.

From the article on War in the ESV Study Bible (pg. 2555):

Since the time of Tertullian and Origen (2nd – 3rd centuries A.D.), some Christians have advocated pacifism, the idea that participating in war is always wrong, or is always wrong at least for Christians.  Arguments used to support pacifism are:

1. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5.39)
2. Jesus taught us that “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22.39)
3. Jesus refused to use the power of the sword to advance his kingdom (Matt. 26.52-53)
4. The use of military force shows lack of trust in God; and
5. Violence always begets more violence and does not really solve the underlying problems

Those who differ with pacifism respond to each of the those arguments as follows:

1. Jesus’ teaching on turning the other cheek was intended as a guide for individual conduct, not for the conduct of governments or soldiers or police in the service of governments.
2. The command to love one’s neighbor is consistent with going to war to protect one’s neighbor from an aggressor, as is evident from the fact that the OT commanded love for one’s neighbor (Lev. 19.18) as well as directions for the conduct of war (Deut. 20).  It is also evident from the example of David, who loved his son Absalom but sent the army against him when Absalom sought to usurp the throne (2 Sam. 18.1-33)
3. It is never right to use military force to advance the gospel message, or complete adherence to Christianity, but that is different from the responsibility of government to protect its citizens
4. The believer’s trust in God must be defined by what Scripture says, including its teachings on God’s appointment of civil government to use force to protect its citizens.  Therefore one should trust God to work through the power of the sword exercised by government
5. It is simply not ture that wars never solve problems: war was necessary to defeat slavery in the nineteenth century in the United States and to defeat Hitler in World War II, as well as to defeat other tyrants throughout history.  In addition, non–pacifist Christians also note,
6. That although Jesus stopped Peter from using a sword to resist arrest on his way to the cross (Matt. 26.52), he did not consider it inconsistent with the directions given hours earlier that same evening when he instructed his disciples to carry weapons for self-defense (Luke 22.35-36); and if using deadly force is justified as required under individual circumstances, there can be no objection to using deadly force as required under civil community circumstances

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

Consider sharing this post

It has been alluded to that faith and government are mutually exclusive.  That is, you have to have one or the other.  Phil Johnson - Executive Director of Grace to You – had the following to say:

Because in order to work in the realm of secular politics, you have to make certain compromises.  Politics is built on compromise.  Anybody who’s involved in politics will affirm that for you.  There are some things you cannot talk about in the political realm and the gospel is one of them.  James Dobson’s political allies in the realm of moral reform include multitudes who would not share his commitment to the gospel of the New Testament (The Foolishness of Preaching the Gospel)

I’m not sure what definition of compromise that Mr. Johnson is using.  However, for a person to compromise is to settle a dispute by accepting “less than they originally wanted.”  So, this means that to compromise in the political process does not mean that a person has to compromise their convictions when working with others – who may or may not be Christians – on any matter.  A person is very well capable of compromising on tactic or policy without having to sell their soul to the Devil. 

Stephen Monsma and Mark Rodgers label such compromises: “half-a-loaf.”  That is, “someone who is working for a certain goal is willing to compromise and accept the partial achievement of that goal on the basis that half a loaf is better than none, as it is often put” (Toward an Evangelical Public Policy, pg. 334). 

For example, “Practical policy making is a craft, and it is more often the art of the possible.  Trade-offs are common.  Should the minimum wage be increased to $10/hour, thereby providing a ‘living wage’ for low-income workers, or will a more modest increase ensure that fewer employees are laid off because they are no longer affordable to business.”  This is just one of many such examples. 

On another note, why does Mr. Johnson believe that a person cannot live thier faith in the political realm and/or share it with others?  Does this just go for government, or does this position include all areas of society?  

Getting back to my point.

Living as a Christian in the world will not naturally make you popular?  (If anything, we’re promised the opposite.  See John 15.19; 17.14).  I imagine the political environment inhabited by William Wilberforce in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, as he and his allies were working towards the abolition of slavery and moral reform, was no less welcoming than politics today.  Wilberforce went on to write a stinging indictment on faith- in Real Christianity, in which he stated in his introduction,

            I would suggest that faith is everyone’s business.  The advance or decline of faith is so     intimately connected to the welfare of a society that it should be of particular interest to a politician (pg. 17).

I will leave the rest of the book for you to read, but I will let you in on the fact that Wilberforce unhesitatingly lived and spoke his faith in Jesus Christ in both word and deed.  This was not done in the privacy of his own home, but rather publicly at the indifference of many.  What Wilberforce exemplified for us is that it is possible for a person to faithfully and wholeheartedly serve God in public affairs without compromising our convictions.

Finally, considering the make-up of our government, why is it wrong for a person to co-labor with others on mutual causes who do not share a mutual faith in Jesus Christ?  Should Christians not have any dealings with non-Christians?  Should Christians refuse to work in the world with non-Christians?  Should we refuse to purchase products or services made and provided by non-Christians?  Should we not invite non-Christians to church related functions until they think, believe, act, and dress the way that we do?   

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

Consider sharing this post

From Corwin Smidt in Church, State, and Public Justice (pg. 127):

Broadly speaking, principled pluralism may be viewed as a framework of understanding that serves to explain and accept the diversity evident in public life, that recognizes different structures of authority that operate within different spheres of social life, and that provides a basis for opposing both totalitarianism and individualism in political life.  Thus principled pluralism accepts the state as a social structure possessing legitimate authority within a particular domain of life, but it sees other social structures as possessing legitimate authority within other domains of human and social life.  The state is one, but not the only, structure to which God has delegated authority

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

Consider sharing this post.

In my last post, I ended by saying:

Not only does Romans 13.1-7 reveal to us that all governments and government officials possess a delegated and limited authority, but the entire corpus of Scripture, both Old and New Testament’s suggest this. 

So, at this point, I would like for us to briefly consider these points from both the Old and New Testament’s.

The Old Testament

The limitation of government was not a new concept developed by Paul.  Rather, this concept was inherited from his Jewish heritage and understanding of the Old Testament (Douglas Moo, Romans, pg. 794). 

John Stott commented on these writings – Romans 13.1-7 – of Paul that he “inherited a long-standing tradition from the Old Testament that Yahweh is sovereign over human kingdoms…” (Romans, pg. 340).  Let us briefly consider several passages from the Old Testament that point to God’s sovereign rule – which is His independent and self-governing rule – over the nations.            

From the Book of Job, we read that God “makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away” (Job 12.23; also see Isaiah 26.15). 

In Jeremiah 25.7-14 we observe that God has used one nation as a means of judgment against another (also see Isaiah 10.5-11). 

We read in three different portions from Daniel, “That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, And bestows it on whom He wishes And sets over it the lowliest of men…the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes…the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes” (Daniel 4.17, 25, and 32).

Finally – yet not conclusively – we read that Solomon declared that by God “kings reign, and ruler’s decree justice” (Proverbs 8.15). 

What these few passages indicate, as well as the general teaching of the Old Testament, that God sovereignly rules and reigns over the nations, both good and evil.     

The New Testament

Romans 13.1-7 is not a standalone passage in the New Testament Epistles apart from the Gospels.  In fact, this passage, as well as several other passages outside of the Gospels, derive their meaning from Jesus’ teaching on the state.    

The Gospels

In Matthew 22.17-2 1 we read:

Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?  But Jesus, aware of their malice said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?  Show me the coin for the tax.”  And they brought him a denarius.  And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said, “Caesar’s.”  Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that area Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (also see Mark 12.12).

Jesus was not establishing a new political order or party.  Jesus was simply giving the government a legitimate role and function in the here-and-now by affirming the payment of taxes and obedience to civil laws. 

This brief, simple, and powerful teaching by Christ was readily embraced and elaborated on by His followers.  Consider the following examples from the Epistles.

The Epistles  

1 Peter 2.13-17 reads,

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.  For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bond slaves of God.  Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

1 Timothy 2.1-2 says,

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

In Titus 3.1 we read,

Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed.

What all of these passages suggest “is that Jesus’ teaching about the relationship of the disciple to the state was the basis for a widespread early Christian tradition, which Paul here takes up and adapts” (Moo, pg. 793). 

With the support of the Old and New Testaments, we observed that the state possesses a limited authority that has been delegated by God.  Therefore, governments – and political parties for that matter – are not to receive an “unqualified endorsement” by anyone.  

You see, “There is a difference between societal obedience (that which is automatic and unreflective) and internal consent (that which is offered only after reflection and assessment),” remarks Jon Isaak,  Assistant Professor of New Testament at Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, Fresno, California. 

He continues, “Such reflection and assessment is the ‘middle step’ that must be inserted in all church-state relations.  The middle step is necessary because conscience (or internal alignment) is precisely that which is to be given to no one but the Lord Jesus Christ (see Romans 12:1-2).”

In the end, all governments’ existence, necessity, and authority are temporal and delegated by God.  This is why no one – especially Christians – should overtly place faith, hope, and trust in what any government can accomplish. 

However, this does not mean that as Christians we are to avoid involvement with the government, especially the democratic form of government in the United States of America. 

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

Consider sharing this post.

The following is from The History Channel Online:

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, an armistice, or temporary cessation of hostilities, was declared between the Allied nations and Germany in the First World War, then known as “the Great War.” Commemorated as Armistice Day beginning the following year, November 11th became a legal federal holiday in the United States in 1938. In the aftermath of World War II and the Korean War, Armistice Day became Veterans Day, a holiday dedicated to American veterans of all wars.

The Great War & Armistice Day

Though the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, November 11 remained in the public imagination as the date that marked the end of the Great War. In November 1918, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day. The day’s observation included parades and public gatherings, as well as a brief pause in business activities at 11 a.m. On November 11, 1921, an unidentified American soldier killed in the war was buried at Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, D.C.; the U.S. Congress had declared the day a legal federal holiday in honor of all those who participated in the war. On the same day, unidentified soldiers were laid to rest at Westminster Abbey in London and at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris.

On June 4, 1926, Congress passed a resolution that the “recurring anniversary of [November 11, 1918] should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations” and that the president should issue an annual proclamation calling for the observance of Armistice Day. By that time, 27 state legislatures had made November 11 a legal holiday. An act approved May 13, 1938 made November 11 a legal Federal holiday, “dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be hereafter celebrated and known as ‘Armistice Day.’” In actuality, there are no U.S. national holidays because the states retain the right to designate their own, and the government can only designate holidays for federal employees and for the District of Columbia. In practice, however, states almost always follow the federal lead.

From Armistice Day to Veterans Day

The American effort during World War II (1941-1945) saw the greatest mobilization of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force in the nation’s history (more than 16 million people); some 5.7 million more served in the Korean War (1950 to 1953). In 1954, after lobbying efforts by veterans’ service organizations, the 83rd U.S. Congress amended the 1938 act that had made Armistice Day a holiday, striking the word “Armistice” in favor of “Veterans.” President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the legislation on June 1, 1954. From then on, November 11 became a day to honor American veterans of all wars.

The next development in the story of Veterans Day unfolded in 1968, when Congress passed the Uniform Holidays Bill, which sought to ensure three-day weekends for federal employees—and encourage tourism and travel—by celebrating four national holidays (Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Columbus Day) on Mondays.

The observation of Veterans Day was set as the fourth Monday in October. The first Veterans Day under the new law was Monday, October 25, 1971; confusion ensued, as many states disapproved of this change, and continued to observe the holiday on its original date. In 1975, after it became evident that the actual date of Veterans Day carried historical and patriotic significance to many Americans, President Gerald R. Ford signed a new law returning the observation of Veterans Day to November 11th beginning in 1978. If November 11 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the federal government observes the holiday on the previous Friday or following Monday, respectively.

Celebrating Veterans Day around the World

Britain, France, Australia and Canada also commemorate the veterans of World Wars I and II on or near November 11th: Canada has Remembrance Day, while Britain has Remembrance Sunday (the second Sunday of November). In Europe, Britain and the Commonwealth countries it is common to observe two minutes of silence at 11 a.m. every November 11.

In the United States, an official wreath-laying ceremony is held each Veterans Day at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington National Cemetery, while parades and other celebrations are held in states around the country. Veterans Day is not to be confused with Memorial Day–a common misunderstanding, according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Memorial Day (the fourth Monday in May) honors American servicemembers who died in service to their country or as a result of injuries incurred during battle, while Veterans Day pays tribute to all American veterans–living or dead–but especially gives thanks to living veterans who served their country honorably during war or peacetime.

DID YOU KNOW?

Red poppies, a symbol of World War I (from their appearance in the poem “In Flanders Fields” by John McCrae) are sold in Canada and the United Kingdom on Remembrance Day to raise money for veterans or worn in the lapel as a tribute.

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

Consider sharing this post.

It has been alluded to that faith and government are mutually exclusive.  That is, you have to have one or the other.  Phil Johnson, who serves as the Executive Director of John MacArthur’s ministry Grace to You, in responding to James Dobson and Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, had the following to say:

Because in order to work in the realm of secular politics, you have to make certain compromises.  Politics is built on compromise.  Anybody who’s involved in politics will affirm that for you.  There are some things you cannot talk about in the political realm and the gospel is one of them.  James Dobson’s political allies in the realm of moral reform include multitudes who would not share his commitment to the gospel of the New Testament.

For a person to compromise is to settle a dispute by accepting “less than they originally wanted.”   Compromising in the political process does not mean that a person has to compromise their convictions when working with others – who may or may not be Christians – on any matter.  A person is very well capable of compromising on tactic or policy without having to sell their soul to the Devil (Toward an Evangelical Policy, pg. 333). 

Stephen Monsma and Mark Rodgers label such compromise “half-a-loaf.”  That is, “someone who is working for a certain goal is willing to compromise and accept the partial achievement of that goal on the basis that half a loaf is better than none, as it is often put” (ibid., pg. 334).   

For example, “Practical policy making is a craft, and it is more often the art of the possible.  Trade-offs are common.  Should the minimum wage be increased to $10/hour, thereby providing a ‘living wage’ for low-income workers, or will a more modest increase ensure that fewer employees are laid off because they are no longer affordable to business.”  This is just one of many such examples. 

On another note, why is a person not allowed to talk about the Gospel?  Will it not make them popular?  Probably not.  I imagine the political environment inhabited by William Wilberforce in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, as he and his allies were working towards the abolition of slavery and moral reform, was no less welcoming than politics today.  Wilberforce went on to write a stinging indictment on faith- in Real Christianity, in which he stated in his introduction,

I would suggest that faith is everyone’s business.  The advance or decline of faith is so     intimately connected to the welfare of a society that it should be of particular interest to a politician (Real Christianity, pg. 17).

I will leave the rest of the book for you to read, but I will let you in on the fact that Wilberforce lived and spoke his faith in Jesus Christ in both word and deed.  This was not done in the privacy of his own home, but rather publicly at the indifference of many.  What Wilberforce exemplified for us is that it is possible for a person to faithfully and wholeheartedly serve God in public affairs without compromising our convictions.

Finally, considering the make-up of our government, why is it wrong for a person to co-labor with others on mutual causes who do not share a mutual faith in Jesus Christ?  Should Christians not have any dealings with non-Christians?  Should Christians refuse to work in the world with non-Christians?  Should we refuse to purchase products or services made and provided by non-Christians?  Should we not invite non-Christians to church related functions until they think, believe, act, and dress the way that we do?   

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

Consider sharing this post

Since the American government is like all other governments, in that it is “established by God” (Romans 13.1) the government and its officials posses a delegated and limited authority by God (John 19.10-11).  Therefore, all governments and government officials are to represent and act on behalf of God in all of their undertakings.           

From our current passage of study – Romans 13.1-7 – there are two reasons why we can draw this conclusion.  First, after Paul encouraged his readers to subject themselves to the governing authorities in verse 1, he explained to them that there “is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”  Thus, any and every form of government derives its authority from God and is therefore limited in scope.  All governments are to exercise their authority under God – not separate from Him.    

The second indication that the government’s authority is limited is found in Romans 13.4 and 6, where we see that government officials are considered “ministers” and “servants of God.”  What is of extreme importance is to draw your attention to the fact that under the inspiration of God, Paul carried along a continuous religious category given to government authorities from the Old Testament by identifying government authorities as ministers and servants of God (Greg Bahnsen, By This Standard, pg. 257).

It is for this reason that Greg Bahnsen posited that “Paul unequivocally teaches the religious character of the civil leader’s office.”  Bahnsen continued that God’s “rule is supreme, and their [government authorities] rules are subordinate.  Civil magistrates must be understood to be deputies of God Himself, not free and independent despots who can simply do as they please” (ibid., pg. 259).

In addition to Bahnsen’s thoughts, Leon Morris commented upon the subordinate role of Government officials under God, saying:

Paul is firmly convinced that God is in control and that nobody secures a position of ruler ship unless God permits.  Ordered government is not a human device, but something of divine origin.  The servants of God must accordingly submit to its laws.  Paul regards rulers not as autonomous, but as ‘established by God’ (v. 1); the ruler is ‘God’s servant’ (v. 4).  This gives the ruler a special dignity but at the same time stresses that his position is a subordinate one.  He is to do, not whatever he wishes, but what the will of God is (Romans, pg. 458). 

It is clear to see from Paul’s religious connation of government authorities, we are given another reason why government and government officials are to exercise their authority in subordination to God and His will and not separated from Him.

How does this apply to Democracy in America?

Speaking more particularly about America, our nation and government officials derive their authority first from God and then the constitution.  It is for this reason that God and then the constitution serve as the basis for judging the specific acts and spheres of influence of our American government.

Yes, our representatives in both the Federal and State level represent our desires; however, their representation is to be submitted first to the authority of God and then the constitution. 

Not only does Romans 13.1-7 reveal to us that all governments and government officials possess a delegated and limited authority, but the entire corpus of Scripture, both Old and New Testament’s suggest this. 

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

Consider sharing this post