Church & State Relations Article

ROMANS 13 Dr. Mark Hamilton
Professor of Philosophy @ Ashland University, Elder @ Providence Church, Mansfield, OH

Views of Church/State relations
Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14; Titus 3:1-2
This Romans passage speaks of the role of the state. Paul, writing while likely in a Roman prison during the persecution of Nero, emphasizes that one should be in subjection to the state, but also that the state is a minister of God placed there by God’s action. It is a legitimate authority and a servant of God to promote justice in a fallen world and given three clear directives: promote good behavior, restrain evil (justice) or punish the evil doer/law breaker, and bear the sword (defense). It will be held accountable by God for its actions. In these passages in general there is a strong emphasis on obedience. The ruler is God’s servant and accountable to God. He should rule according to the divine standards, and when he doesn’t he is to be judged.

Erastianism is the view that the Civil Magistrate should rule both State and Church. The State is thus over the Church. The term comes from THOMAS ERASTUS (1524-1583), A Zwinglian (another Swiss reformer), and professor of medicine at Heidelberg. He advocated the right of the state to intervene in ecclesiastical matters. The Church has no right to excommunicate its members. God has given this right to the civil authorities. It is to govern all visible authorities. It is the only visible authority. Punitive authority belongs to the magistrate alone. Religion is the creature of the state. The state even is supreme in ecclesiastical causes. Erastus primarily deals with the issues of the disciplinary powers of the church. This concept is embraced by various Kings who appoint religious positions (like bishops). In various other times it was this concept of the state that gave Christian governments the authority to punish, imprison, or execute heretics.

Ecclesiocracy is the view that the Church and State are not separate, but rather the Church is the governing body over the State. The Church has power over the State in all spheres and dictates policy to the State. An institutional Church rules the State and the State carries out the ecclesiastical objectives of the church. To be a citizen is to be a church member. Here the political rulers can be appointed by the state, or even lose all authority if they do not have the support of the Church. Another term for this in Catholicism is Papalism. Here the pope rules both church and state. There were medieval popes who led troops into battle. The Church holds authority to excommunicate and wield the sword

The Establishment Principle is when a particular denomination of the Christian Church is linked to the State. In such a union the denomination becomes the State church and it alone receives the support of the state; all other denominations or independent Christian congregations are either tolerated or suppressed. The state church remains independent from the control of the state (at least in theory), but the primary denomination is nearly inseparable from the state (Church of Scotland, Church of England, etc).

Anabaptist view of the State is the view that the State is part of the system called the world and that Christians should have nothing to do with the State. It is essentially evil and we are called to “Love not the world or the things of it.” They understand that the civil magistrate has the authority to wield the sword, but also believe that the Christian should be a pacifist (turning the other cheek) or advocate of non-violence. The Church and State are in tension with one another. One being the Kingdom of God which is the church and the other the Kingdom of Satan is the state government. Therefore it is improper that Christians perform the role of civil magistrate. This is sometimes referred to as a Separatists viewpoint.

Secularism: This fifth view has emerged as the view of the State as Secular. The two spheres are completely separate. The State is not evil; it is neutral and necessary. It is just not to be influenced by religion. The Church is God’s realm and the State is independent from God and from all religious influence, i.e. secular. The State maintains a clear wall of separation or neutrality and gives no support to any religion at all. This view believes that being non-religious produces a state neutral to religion. The State tolerates religion as long as it stays out of the State’s affairs. There can be no appeal to any religious or Christian principles in the state’s constitution, or qualifications for office. This is close to the contemporary American view and also the view of much of Europe today. It often emerges as Statism.

Reformed view or Calvin’s doctrine of two kingdoms (not to be confused with the current concept of the two kingdoms which is similar to an anabaptist approach) - Sometimes referred to as National Confessionalism. Here the State is a power divinely established because of sin in order to promote external justice by outer or external restraints (force). The Church and State are separate but coordinate spheres. They have separate realms and responsibilities. Each has jurisdiction or is supreme in its own province but they are ideally bound to work cooperatively with one another for the Glory of God. The kingdom of God is more than the external church. Governments consisting of sinful men are prone to ordain sinful laws and interfere with legitimate freedoms. The State is responsible before God to protect rights and perform good duties. Be subject to the state and support it but the state should not frustrate the obedience man owes God. The apostles resist rulers who impede the gospel (Acts 4:19, 5:29). Here we find institutional separation where the church and state cannot mingle in one another’s affairs (True separation of Church and State). Civil Gov’t must not frustrate the obedience man owes God and cannot disturb the ministry or operations of the church doctrine or sacraments. There is sphere sovereignty whereby there are separate jurisdictions. Each remains independent of the control of the other yet there is an informal union because each confesses the same Lord. The family holds the rights to inheritance, the Church guards the table, and the state wields the sword. There are no prohibitions to applying religious precepts to the state. They must assist one another. Clearly no one denomination should rule the state. The confessions read that they should have separate but coordinate spheres.

Westminster Confession Chapter 23

God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for defense and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers.
It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called there unto; in the management whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth, so for that end they may lawfully now, under the New Testament wage war upon just and necessary occasion.
Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ has appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should inter with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or indifference in religion, does not make void the magistrates just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.

London Baptist Confession of 1689 Chapter 24

God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for defense and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers. Romans 13:1-4
It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called there unto; in the management whereof, as they ought especially to maintain justice and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth, so for that end they may lawfully now, under the New Testament wage war upon just and necessary occasions.

2 Samuel 23:3, Psalms 82:3,4, Luke 3:14.

Civil magistrates being set up by God for the ends aforesaid; subjection, in all lawful things commanded by them, ought to be yielded by us in the Lord, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; and we ought to make supplications and prayers for kings and all that are in authority, that under them we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Romans 13:5-7, 1 Peter 2:17. 1 Timothy 2:1-2

It is clear from Scripture and from the statements in these 2 confessions that governments do not need to be Christian in any explicit or implicit means in order for us to be submitted to them. Non-Christian governments have been raised up by God for us to obey them. This is also the consistent position of the reformers. The general understanding of this in Scripture and in church history since Augustine has been that citizens have the duty to obey their leaders or magistrates whether they are evil or good, wicked or righteous. Citizens are always duty bound to obey God; and when the imperatives of obedience to God and obedience to civil authority conflict then citizens must choose to obey God and willingly accept the punishment of disobedience.

Distinctions about Civil Disobedience – Important terms and concepts.

Civil Dissent is to disagree in sentiment or in opinion with a viewpoint with a government. It is to have a disagreeing opinion from the authorities. There seems to be room in Scripture and in the Confessions for civil dissent to exist. The prophets often disagreed with the rulers and told them to repent and to do good. If one finds the self in disagreement with an action of the state, what means are available to act?
Certainly, all legal means are available and useful as forms of dissent. These could be working to change laws, participating in writing letters and educating others, legal forms of protesting and working for alternative candidates are some legal options. I believe that an argument could be made that these are even necessary actions to undertake.
What about Civil Disobedience? This is the intentional breaking or violating of a law. When is it permitted, if ever? How do we respond to the unlawful commands of the magistrates? Civil Disobedience for a Christian is “purposeful nonviolent action or refusal to act, by a Christian who believes such action or inaction is required of him or her in order to be faithful to God, and which he or she knows will be treated by the government as a violation of the law.” It is motivated by conscientious conviction. Among those unlawful commands are those that command us to do unlawful deeds, i.e. to kill another, to participate in a gay marriage, to fight an unlawful war, to practice the other religions, to worship Caesar, etc. There are also commands which could prohibit certain practices, i.e. refrain from preaching the gospel, do not gather as a church, etc. How do we respond to these directives in the light of Romans 13 and other Scripture? How do we determine and unlawful law and at what point should or must it be disobeyed? Furthermore, civil disobedience has two major species: violent and nonviolent. Violent civil disobedience leads to revolution, rebellion, and the likelihood of war (The American Revolution) or anarchy (The French Revolution). Nonviolent civil disobedience leads to intentional law-breaking activity and passively accepting the consequences of arrest, being beaten, or imprisonment, i.e. Paul or Martin Luther King.

A recent extremely important philosopher, Ronald Dworkin, has described 3 types of civil disobedience.

“integrity-based” occurs when a citizen disobeys a law one feels is immoral, as in the case of abolitionists disobeying the fugitive slave laws by refusing to turn over escaped slaves to authorities. Commands not to preach the gospel seem to fit here or to worship emperors.
“justice-based” occurs when a citizen disobeys laws in order to lay claim to some right denied him as when blacks illegally protested during the Civil Rights Movement.
“policy-based” occurs when a person breaks the law in order to change a policy believed to be dangerously wrong.

When is Civil Disobedience allowed for a Christian? Here are some challenging Biblical examples:

Exodus 1:15-22 Pharoah gave the command to 2 Hebrew midwives to kill all male Jewish babies. Should they obey the government order? The Bible declares they disobeyed Pharaoh and “feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live.” They went on to lie to Pharaoh about why they were letting the children live. 1:20-21 – God was good to the midwives , and the people multiplied and became very mighty because the midwive s feared God. Would their example be similar to hiding run-away slaves?
Joshua 2 Rahab directly disobeyed a command from the king of Jericho to produce the Hebrew spies who had entered the city as spies before the battle. Instead she let them down a rope so they could escape.
1 Samuel records a command given by King Saul during a military campaign that no one could eat until Saul had won his battle with the Philistines. However, Saul’s son Jonathan, who had not heard the order used the honey to refresh himself form the hard battle the army had waged. When Saul found out about it, he ordered his son to die. However, the people resisted Saul and his command and saved Jonathan from being put to death (1 Sam. 14:45).
1 Kings 18
2 Kings has the only apparently approved revolt against a reigning government. Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, began to destroy the royal offspring of the house of Judah. However, Joash the son of Ahaziah was taken by the king’s daughter and hidden from Athaliah so that the bloodline would be preserved. Later, Hehoiada gathered men around him, declared Joash to be king and put Athaliah to death.
Daniel records numerous examples of Civil Disobedience: ch. 3 where Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refuse to bow down to the golden idol. In ch. 6 Daniel defies King Darius’ decree to not pray to anyone other than the king.
Peter and John are rested for preaching Jesus and put in jail. In Acts 4:19-20, Acts 5:29 they respond by saying they will obey God not men.
Revelation 13 Christians at that time will refuse to obey the Antichrist’s demand to worship the image.
1 Kings 18:4 Obadiah hid 100 prophets in a cave when Jezebel was after them; the wise men disobeyed the King in Matthew 2:8, 12.

Conclusions:

We must submit to authorities understanding that they are put in place by God. The offices should be respected. We should seek to live in peace.
Christians should resist a government that commands or compels evil and work to change the laws or to change a government that allows or commands evil. No human authority is absolute. All authorities are ultimately subject to God.
Civil Disobedience is permitted when a government’s laws or commands are in direct violation of God’s laws, but we must be very careful and very sure that it is actually doing so and that all other options have been exhausted. Legal means of changing the unjust situation should have been all used up. Similar to Just War Theory where war is a last resort, civil disobedience is a last resort.
If one chooses to obey conscience and disobey an unlawful law then one should accept the government’s punishment.
There is always a place to lawfully work to change the law or install new leaders by lawful means. This is an ethical challenge facing us because of the sinful character of the world and the institutions in which we live. Ordinarily, our clear moral obligation is to obey the existing authorities but this may not always be possible when it conflicts with the commands or laws of God.

Where do we draw the line? When should we disobey civil authorities?
Obviously it is when the state violates the commands of God with an unlawful law or command, such as do not preach the gospel or worship false gods. I would argue that when the state commands murder or death unlawfully it should be disobeyed. To disobey could cost a person a lot, almost everything.

Concepts in this discussion:

Nullification – when a state oversteps or overreaches its given or constitutional authority. In 1798 Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts with penalties for criticizing certain aspects of government, placing unconstitutional restrictions on speech. Kentucky passed the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions (written by Jefferson) resolving not to recognize the validity of the Acts in Kentucky. In 1850 Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act requiring free northern states to return fleeing slaves. Wisconsin and other states refused to recognize it and deemed the Supreme Court opinion denying full personhood to slaves to be unconstitutional. Ignoring or defying unconstitutional federal law is nullification. Should states today nullify unconstitutional opinions and laws such as Roe vs Wade or Obergefell? Jury nullification could occur when a person who violates the Fugitive Slave Law is not held guilty by a jury that believes the law to be wrong. Thus a jury is responsible to deliver justice not to blindly uphold an unjust law.
The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate declares that when the superior or higher civil authority makes unjust or immoral laws or decrees, the lesser or lower ranking civil authority has a right to refuse obedience and even to resist the superior authority. It reminds the higher authority that their authority is limited. It was first formalized in 1550 by the Lutheran pastors in the Magdeburg Confession. The best treatise ever written on the doctrine was John Knox’s Appellation to the Nobility and Estates of Scotland (1558).
Interposition is a calling of God which causes someone to willingly step into the gap placing oneself between the oppressor and his victim. For a lesser magistrate it is placing himself between the unjust law of the higher authority and the people.

Arguments against Revolution

Need for political and social continuity (Burke) are needed in any orderly society. Revolutions are inherently destructive often leading from one despot to another. Example of the French Revolution.
The means employed (Camus) represent enormous risk with slender hopes of success so that risks always outweigh benefits.
To disobey a law is to destroy all law thus creating anarchy.
Romans 13:2 so to disobey the authorities is to disobey God. With this and other scriptures the burden of proof is on those who would attempt to justify revolution.

Arguments for Revolution
Near the end of the Institutes, Calvin writes, “For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings (as in ancient times the ephors were set against the Spartan kings, or the tribunes of the people against the Roman consuls, or the demarchs against the senate of the Athenians…), I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious pertidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people of which they know that they have een appointed protectors by God’s ordinance.”

There is no place for private revolutionary action. But there is a right for properly designated representatives of the people to resist the tyranny of kings. This was reasserted by Samuel Rutherford in 1644, Johannes Althusius in 1603 and by the Magdeburg Confession of 1550 which affirmed the duty of armed resistance to a ruler who violated the law of God.

Calvin argues that earthly rulers lay aside their power when they rise up against God.
John Locke on the basis of a social contract theory of government and the assumption that the goal of government is the welfare of the people argued for the right of revolution when the government no longer honors that end.
If these Scriptures are true: Judges 2:16; Job 12:18-19; Daniel 2:21; Luke 1:52, by what means does God do this? It can be argued that God specifically willed the overthrow of the governing authorities and called the leaders of his people to use deadly force in the process.

A key question is: Who is the legitimate authority when Romans 13:1 says to be subject to the governing authorities? Who is the legitimate authority in the eyes of God? When the call of God came to Gideon in Judges 6, Gideon, rather than the Midianite rulers, became the legitimate authority for the people of Israel and Gideon was called of God to forcibly overthrow the existing order. Is the principle valid? In general God wills the existence of the powers that be but Scripture clearly shows that God can also will to bring any existing government to an end and to replace it with another more in accord with His standards.

For this to occur there must be like in Just War theory a Competent Authority or a Lawful Authority to interpose, such as the Declaration of Independence, the need for Iraq to establish a government in exile in 2003. The case may be that the existing authority is no longer a legitimate authority because it has broken the law of God and turned its back on its people. A revolutionary situation can call into question the moral legitimacy of the existing authority and new leaders may be raised up to restore a legitimate government.

There must be a Just Cause, not merely a response to burdensome of inconvenient conditions or rationalizing a narrow interest. The demands for fundamental justice must outweigh the normal preference for stability and peace. The existing government should be one that persistently threatens or kills human life and denies fundamental human rights, or to repel and international aggressor. The cause must be moral.

It should be a Last Resort. Given the real possibility that violence may escalate beyond the control of the leadership, peaceful means must all have been exhausted.

There must be a reasonable hope of success because the costs are so grave. The proportion of good achieved should be worth the cost. The cure must not be worse than the disease. It should be rightly conducted.

A FEW EXAMPLES OF HISTORY
William Tyndale was strangled in 1536 for printing the Bible in English.
Thomas More defied King Henry VIII over a matter of conscience in 1535.
John Knox and other reformers took this quite serioiusly.
The Manhattan Declaration of 2009 says, “As Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. Because we honor justice and the common good, we will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But in no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

A high view of a Sanctified Conscience plays a key role in this discussion. 1 Tim. 1:5, “The goal of our instruction is a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.”

What about in our situations?
Adhering to state laws, including Farm laws?
Refusing to pay property taxes?
Refusing to pay social security or income tax?
Blocking an abortion clinic and being arrested for trespassing?
Is it worth the cost?

MUCH, MUCH MORE!