He cites
Romans 13 as the passage which delineates the role and responsibilities of
government and how God uses it to administer justice and righteousness on earth.
For the most
part I can agree with him. In a fallen world, government serves as a restraint.
God utilizes it and providentially ordains the regimes that rule in order to
keep the world from falling into chaos. This peace though flawed and often less
than just, allows the Church to bear witness through testifying to the truth,
and to continue building the Kingdom through the salvation of souls. The Church
perseveres in the face of worldly opposition and God is glorified as his
martyr-Temple, those united with Christ, resist the world and live as pilgrims
and strangers on the earth.
The renewed
believers of Romans 12 who eschew violence and vengeance are contrasted with
the agents of the state in Romans 13. Paul explains the need for the state and
how we are to respond to it. We understand it serves a purpose but we're not
part of it, nor do we endorse it. We largely want it to leave us alone. Even
corrupt states with idolatrous aspirations and flawed justice will largely
leave good peaceful people alone and will punish the agitators and those that
seek to harm others. When citizenship becomes something idolatrous and rivals
our Kingdom obligations, that's when we have trouble.
In the
United States, the Church has turned this idolatry into Christian virtue and
duty and thus until recently the mainstream Church has suffered little in the
way of opposition let alone persecution.
This is
where MacArthur makes a wrong turn and ends up on the wrong side of the issue.
He endorses the state and its agents that enforce its will through violence.
Again they
are necessary and providentially ordained by God but that doesn't mean God
endorses their actions nor does it mean they are necessarily good. Assyria and
Persia were also spoken of as God's servants or ministers. Many Christians err
in reading Romans 13 and think that the state is somehow akin to an 'office'
within the Kingdom. The Roman state that Paul lived under was no more a servant
than was Assyria or Persia. They serve a Providential purpose but it does not
mean we encourage them, join with them or take up arms to defend them. They are
ministers in the sense of being agents of God's reign but they are in no way
part of the Holy Redemptive Realm that is the Kingdom of God. The state is not
redemptive, it's not part of the plan of salvation. Its work is not the work of
Christ applied to the world. It does not save and neither it nor its
institutions will be part of the consummated Kingdom.
The violent
acts in the Old Testament were legitimate because they were executed in the
context of the Covenant. The Israelites were agents of the Holy State, the Holy
Nation a typological picture of Christ the Judge and Saviour. Fulfilling a Divine Commission they were the
arm of Christ. It is a great error for Christians to cite these passages and
apply them to non-typical, non-Covenantal nations of this era.
In the New
Covenant there is no Holy Nation apart from the Church of Jesus Christ. And
this nation lives in the time between the times. We are citizens of the Age to
Come. We are called to live as if we were in Heaven (for we are) but live in
the turmoil and anguish of the cursed earth. In this setting we glorify God by
being obedient, rejecting the world's deceptions and testifying to God's glory
and grace. This is our calling at all times. Career aspirations, social
integration or desire for a voice in society do not allow Christians to set
aside these obligations.
Violence in the
common grace sphere is out of bounds for Christians. To suggest that a
Christian can don a badge and now wield a gun to enforce a legal code that is
not redemptive, not part of the Kingdom is say that Christians can serve two
masters. It is to allow two different authorities for one's ethics. Those of us
who insist Christians cannot serve the state are accused of capitulation and
retreat of being Sunday-only Christians who give in to the world the rest of
the week.
Those that
charge us of this are actually guilty of it. It is they who are saying that on
Sunday you take off your badge (so to speak) and become a Bible-obeying
Christian. Then on Monday morning you become another person that uses violence
to intimidate and coerce others, to enforce an unjust and necessarily flawed
man-made system that will burn at the end of the Age with the rest of man's
works.
As
Christians we are not to seek bondage, we are not to bind ourselves to
obligations that hinder our walk with Christ. We have a problem because the
Church has created theological categories that accommodate the world and allow
the Church's members to set aside their Christian obligations in the name of
dominion, vocation, office and worldview... all perversions of the New
Testament picture of the Christian living in the world.
As an
officer or soldier you swear an oath. I did so as a pagan and once converted I
immediately regretted it, repented of it and was burdened by it until I was
able to free myself from the obligation.
As a
'Christian' agent of the state your loyalty is divided and you live a lie. If
you put your Christian obligations first you are violating your oath to the
system you swore to uphold. If you show favour or disfavour based on your own
ethical sensibilities and preferences then you are being less than faithful to
your oath. If you keep the oath, which you should have never taken to begin
with, then you betray your commitment to Christ's Kingdom.
You cannot
have it both ways.
The fact
that objectivity is virtually impossible and that other officers are equally
biased is a poor excuse. We're Christians, we ought to know better. We're held
to a higher standard. Christian police officers are playing fast and loose with
their obedience to God and in the end are only deceiving themselves.
MacArthur
refers to the police as Peace Officers. On paper and in theory this may be the
case but in all actuality they are corrupt and self-serving. This is not unique
to our day, it's simply the nature of power in a fallen world. Too often they
are just as much an evil as the evil system they serve. That said, the system,
even if evil, flawed and fallen is better than the chaotic evil of no-system.
The Christians who promote laissez-faire almost anarchistic libertarianism have
a very low few sin and demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge and discernment
when it comes to economics, sociology and especially history. Such an
arrangement can work only on paper or in a fantasy novel.
We are
thankful for the state and even the police but we keep our distance. They're
not 'us' and we're not 'them'. They are not interested in peace unless it
serves the regime. Their motivations are wholly different from ours and in the
American system in particular there are serious conflicts of interest regarding
revenue collection, the penal system and the so-called Drug War.
There are
racial issues. I'm not saying that Christians should be out on the streets
throwing rocks and protesting. Quite the contrary but in the Babylonian system
that is America I want to see the power of the police checked and reined in. We
are slowly creeping toward a police state and when people take to the streets
the politicians take note and try to work compromises. Is it perfect, just or
reasonable? Rarely. Why would we expect
such things in this fallen world?
And yet I
doubt there are very many people in MacArthur's congregation that would
understand why the minorities and poor are frustrated, angry and feel
disenfranchised from the system they live under. Their responses are not
Christian but neither is the conduct of the state or the men with badges and
guns that enforce its will.
We are
truth-tellers and that means that in most situations we're going to see both
sides and be critical of all sides. The riots need to stop but the system of
law enforcement is broken and has become in many cases criminal. It is a shame to
witness so many Christians clamouring to venerate the state's agents of
violence and despite the protests to the contrary there is still a great deal
of racism in our society. And since the Church (to its shame) echoes and replicates
the worldview of society and in many instances has baptized the American
narrative it is no surprise these forces are also at work in the Church. As
much as MacArthur can be appreciated, some of his words in the corresponding
sermon exhibit this and were disappointing to hear. The sermon is entitled 'How
God Restrains Evil in the World'. You can find it at his website or at
SermonAudio.
MacArthur
also mentioned that he invited the police to join in their worship services and
many showed up in uniform. He says,
"Response
from the officers was very encouraging. They were no doubt startled to hear
their jobs described in scriptural terms and affirmed as eternally
significant. Even for our congregation, the service was special due to the
unique context."
It is
surprising to see MacArthur resorting to this kind of gimmicky stuff. It
reminds one of the 'Blue' masses practiced by the Roman Catholics. At this
point his behaviour and apparent strategy is no different than the Seeker
churches he has rightly criticized in the past. We do not cater the meetings of
Christ's church to a segment of society and we do not seek to fill our meetings
with unbelievers. This is not how evangelism is done and MacArthur knows it
well. Was he that agitated by the recent events that he felt compelled to do
this?
These events
are nothing new. We all remember the LA Riots in 1992, and MacArthur was an
adult when the Watts Riot and the MLK riots happened in the 1960's. This
doesn't mean they aren't significant, but was there some reason that he was
extra-agitated by the recent upheavals? Maybe I'm mistaken and he's done things
like this in the past but I am unaware of it and it seems almost out of
character.
If police
happen to attend our services they are welcome but that is not an endorsement.
I would definitely encourage them 'not' to wear their uniforms and I would make
a special effort in terms of discipleship to help them see that it's time to
hand in the badge and find more honourable and Kingdom-worthy employment.
The police
are the 'outside' as Paul says. The fact that Christians do not go to the
courts of the unbelievers implies the judiciary is a non-covenantal authority,
part of the 'outside'. We do not escape it, we have to live in the world but
that's a far cry from joining with it. The judgments of the courts are enforced
by the police with a threat of violence. I know many argue that Christians are
not to sue Christians but that we can sue unbelievers and we can litigate with
regard to business etc...
That's not
what Christ says in the Sermon on the Mount. I realize the implications of this
are startling for those who seek power and believe it is the Church's task to
wield it. Far from it. We are to eschew it and deny ourselves. Even allowing
for a degree of hyperbole the overall message is one of self-denial and a
rejection of self-assertiveness. Certainly an other-worldly mentality and
posture is one that is hardly concerned with 'rights' and retribution. Generally
speaking the lawsuit is forbidden to us, even if that means our own harm. The
lawsuit is a form of retaliation, calling on the state to use coercion to right
a wrong. This is wrong in our personal lives and when done in the context of the
Church, it's nothing less than disgraceful. Living as strangers, pilgrims and
exiles we are effectively second-class citizens. We do not assert our rights or
call on the state to right our wrongs. We can be thankful for the state, pray
for its peace, but we keep our distance.
The Babel
project cannot be sanctified by putting a cross on top of its tower or carving
Scripture on its monuments. In fact such acts are sacrilege and represent a
terrible confusion of Babylon with Zion.
MacArthur
must also be questioned with regard to his Christian Nationalism. Are these
sentiments only valid in the American context? Are Christians in France bound
to support their government even if that means standing against the United
States? Should they sing The Marseillaise in Church or even out on the public
square? If he answers no, then why not? Is it because of French history? They're
not Christian and we are? Is not their course also ordained by the Hand of Providence?
Even France's secularism can have its benefits. The Huguenots have reason to
celebrate the French Revolution. It ended their persecution and smashed the
Bourbon dynasty.
What of
Christians living in Russia? Should they support Putin and call in the agents
of the state to honour and praise them? Should Christians sing the national
anthem and put Russian flags up in their Church meetings? Today's Russia
certainly views itself as a Christian state and seeks to implement this
understanding in terms of law and society. While we reject such frameworks it's
clear MacArthur does not.
History
cannot be a guide to determining these questions and that's all the more true
if we drink from the polluted well of Christianity in America. Christian
Nationalism is rooted in dubious theology, myth and historical romanticism.
Turning to the Bible alone tells us that even if America was founded as a
Christian nation (which it wasn't) it would also tell us the very notion is
erroneous. There's no such thing and if that's the case then the promotion of
it by American Christians is nothing more than a theological and historical
lie.
Of course
it's wrong for French Christians to venerate their government as it is for
British, Americans, Germans, Russians and Zambians.
Our loyalty
to and appreciation of these institutions must be severely limited. The state
which ultimately will burn at the Eschaton is outside the Church and should not
be a cause of division within the Church. Those who promote a takeover along
with the specific vision they would impose, while insisting their views are
Christian and for the good of the Church are in fact promoting schism, causing
unnecessary divisions and driving the Church into unnecessary internal
conflict. It is this camp that is guilty of introducing doctrines and ideas
completely foreign to Scripture. They would cite Old Covenant Israel but the
New Testament teaches the whole Old Testament system was typological, pointing
to Christ. To apply the typology to a non-redemptive nation is to throw pearls
to swine, treating Babylon as Zion or making Zion no better than Babylon.
Finally
MacArthur seems to endorse the Rebellion of 1776, and I frame it that way to
make a point. History is written by the victors. His discussion of Romans 13
becomes absurd if you craft a narrative about a God-blessed and Providentially
inspired violent rebellion and then insist that all such rebellious activity is
now sinful. Was it a one-time occasion? In all actuality it must be said the
Rebellion of 1776 was sinful and yet it happened. We don't have to account for
the action of people in the past but we do have to account for ourselves in the
present. The United States is a reality, as Providentially ordained as Castro's
Cuba or the French Revolution, but that's not an endorsement either. And we
shouldn't presume to interpret Providence and declare its outworking as automatically blessed.
Again at
this point Christians turn to mythological narratives concerning 1776, that it
was a Christian struggle, a fight for religious freedom. This is absurd. There
is no reference to any such cause in the Declaration or the Constitution. The
Constitution grants religious freedom in terms of Enlightenment liberty and
makes a substantial break with the Western tradition. Thankfully so, we might
add.
Were the
Hanoverians tyrannical? No doubt, but no more than Rome was when Paul wrote
Romans.
Was their
taxation unjust? Maybe. But to refuse to pay taxes is forbidden in Scripture,
let alone to kill over the issue.
The
Revolution and its principles introduced schism into the Colonial Churches and
led to violent division as many orthodox Christians believed it was wrong to
take up arms against the king. This sad but fascinating story has been all but
ignored by most Christians in America today. The conduct of the Church during
this period is nothing less than disgraceful. They glory in what ought to be
their shame.
At the
moment the powers ordained by God are the American Empire and its political
figurehead Barack Obama. We can bear witness against it, not as partisans but
as Truth-tellers. Obama is evil but so are the Bush's, so was Reagan... in fact
every US president has a pretty dubious record when it comes to virtue, truth
and Christian character. That's why they were presidents.
The doctrine
of the Lesser Magistrate is a cop-out, a fiction, a speculation. It begs the
question assuming some kind of Constantinian model. It is without any
Scriptural warrant and is built on a false foundation. To utilize such a
doctrine to justify violent resistance is to baptize bloodshed and is therefore
a damnable heresy.
MacArthur is
right in asserting God restrains evil in the world through the state but
imagine the early Church setting up Roman banners in its meeting, inviting
uniformed legions to attend and to celebrate and affirm their role... I don't
think so. And that would be true even before Rome started persecuting the
Church. Imagine the Christians of Persia doing this with the symbols and
officials of the Parthian Shah. Christians lived very peacefully in Persia
until the time of Constantine, but they didn't venerate the Persian Empire.
But America (it
will be argued) doesn't persecute Christians? Why? There's nothing to
persecute. The American Babel is baptized by the American Church. They will
happily worship the tokens of Caesar, serve in its legions and worship at its
altars and venerate its pantheon. American Christianity is largely apostate.
If we refuse
to conform to the social order, refuse military participation, juries, voting,
public schools, patriotism... then we get some resistance. Try sitting down the
next time the Star-Spangled Banner is played, tell the person at the door why
as a Christian you refuse to vote. Tell the judge why you won't serve on their
jury... and you get a little more in the way of response.
Speak out
about our economic system and why you won't participate in about 95% of it and
you'll hear about it... ironically with the greatest volume coming from within
the Church.
MacArthur is
to be appreciated on many points, but in this matter he has gone astray.