Exceptions Evaluated (Part 2)

The Christian and the government

Well, welcome to week five of our series on the Christian and the government. Notice once again that there are some notes provided on the back of your prayer list. And we are currently in the midst of evaluating that list of six possible exceptions that I had previously introduced. Last week we made it through the first three, so today I want to briefly review those and then spend our time discussing the latter three. And in terms of what we've covered so far, we've seen that the New Testament explicitly commands us to be subject to governing authorities, to honor them, pray for them, to pay our taxes. So we should ordinarily obey the government, but we've also said that there can be exceptions to that and we're trying to think critically and carefully about when those exceptions might be valid and what valid exceptions could be. As far as review, last week we looked at the first one, which is commanding sin. I've provided a little bit of an explanation, some feedback I got last week, as that would be helpful just to remember what these things are. So if the government commands us to do what God forbids, like bow down and worship a golden statue, we rightly refuse. Or if the government forbids us from doing what God commands, like sharing the gospel, we rightly disobey them. We obey God rather than men. So that's the most straightforward one that I think pretty much every Christian would agree with. It's the next five that are a little trickier. So number two is this idea that submit, we're commanded to submit, it doesn't say obey. And so this is the idea that it's possible to be obeying what God's word says in Romans 13. where God says be subject, even if you're disobeying the laws of the governing authority. So kind of like how we might say, you know, an adult child should honor his parents, but that doesn't always mean that he has to obey them, because there's a difference between obey and honor. And so people sort of try to lean into that to say, hey, the command here is to submit, not obey. And last time I argued that one big problem I see with that interpretation, at least in Romans 13, is that Paul's argument basically says, be subject to governing authorities and then they won't punish you, right? They'll approve of you instead of using the sword against you. But obviously, that really only makes sense if by be subject, Paul means obey. Because the government is not really going to care how submissive of a posture you have if you're breaking the laws. You know, that's when they're going to step in and sort of use the sword against you. Paul clearly has obedience in mind when he says, submit here. And so while there may be another reason that we disobey, and it may be, I think it's often godly and right to try to disobey with a submissive posture. I don't think this is a very good sort of exception standing alone. All right, and then the third one we looked at last time is what if the government is promoting evil? Now, in the feedback I got, there was some confusion because this sounds pretty similar to commanding sin. All right, so what's the difference between this third one and the first one. Well, I think the difference is that this idea of promoting evil has to do with situations where the government isn't necessarily commanding you as an individual to sin in some explicit way, but they are commanding something that by cooperating with it, you're sort of allowing them to promote evil or oppression either in society or in a specific way. And actually, Emily shared an example with me this week that I think illustrates this pretty well. Her grandfather was a missionary in Africa for many years, and at one point he was a missionary in Rhodesia when it was under apartheid. And there was a law which forbade Africans from entering white persons' homes. And apparently, you know, most other Christians and missionaries abided by that. But Emily's grandfather felt like he could not. He didn't go around sort of making big protests, but he did just begin inviting Africans to come into their home and share meals with them. And because of that, he was deported about six months later. But this had a really significant impact on the country because There were like hundreds of Africans that came to the airport protesting this, and it was all over the news. And I think that's a really positive example of a Christian resisting an unjust law. And maybe you could get there by arguing, well, this really falls under Category 1, that somehow this is commanding sin to comply. But I think it's at least less clear, and that's probably why a lot of other people just sort of went along with it, than it is clear that this law itself is promoting evil in society. And so that's where I think this category can be helpful. You know, there's a place to say this government is promoting something so wrong or unjust through this law that were justified in disobeying it. And when you look at Romans 13, notice that the second reason for which Paul grounds obeying the government is that they're not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. So if they're doing a reverse, like in this case, being a terror to someone trying to love their neighbor by inviting them into their house, that seems like a justification not to comply. However, as we talked about last time, This doesn't mean that we have a free license to disobey any time we disagree or any time that we think a law is promoting something that could have some harmful consequences. Because the reality is that's every law there is. You know, you can always string together some line of reasoning to say, if I disagree with this, I think it's promoting some sort of evil in some sort of way. And, you know, if submit is going to mean anything at all, it has to mean that sometimes we comply with something we don't agree with. Right? So we have to have that space in there. Just as a personal example, you know, I generally disagreed with a lot of the mask mandates that were given. You know, as I personally sort of weighed the benefit of, you know, potentially not spreading disease and protecting things against, there's a cost of, hey, we can't socialize and relate and see each other in the same kind of way. I kind of came down to the fence like, I don't think it's worth it. I would do it differently. And yet at the same time, I did not think that I could say, well, the government's promoting evil here in such a way that I can use this exception to not comply. Now, the point here is not whether or not you agree with me on that particular issue. That's not my point. I'm just trying to illustrate that, you know, promoting evil is not merely I disagree. It's something more than that and where exactly that line is is part of why I keep saying it's going to take some wisdom and prayer. So this is not to answer all the questions but to try to give some what are the categories and how do we think about it well. With that review done, let's turn to the next three, and point number four there is outside their lane. And so this exception would be the idea that scripture prescribes a certain role for the government, and so therefore the authority of the government is sort of limited by that lane or sphere corresponding to its role. So therefore, if the government makes laws, you know, sort of outside of that, we aren't responsible to obey them. And this idea is related to the concept of sphere sovereignty, which is the idea that God's given different spheres of authority to different things. So there's the family, there's the church. There's the state, and these different authorities have sort of different spheres of authority. And therefore, no one thing has authority that's just sort of unbounded. So, to illustrate, let's consider a hypothetical example. What if the government makes a law saying, here are the 100 hymns and songs that churches are allowed to sing? And let's say that it's actually a really good list. They're theologically sound. We might even be sort of happy that there are certain churches out there that if they would sing this list instead of what they are singing. Now, should we feel obligated to obey the government in that? What if we want to sing a song that's not on the list? Should we feel kind of bound? They're the government authority. The Bible tells us to submit. So we need to stick to this list. What do you think? No, okay. Now, the government's not commanding sin, right? There's nothing sinful about singing those songs. It's not promoting evil because they're theologically sound. There's nothing wrong with having a song list. I mean, we actually have one as a church. But why do we say no? Yeah, I mean, I think we would say it's not for you to tell us how to worship God or what songs we can sing to him. You're outside your lane. And so that would be an example where I think, you know, this concept of sphere sovereignty can be helpful. Different authorities should recognize and respect one another. The government shouldn't meddle in the church, and the church also shouldn't try to rule through the state. There's a healthy kind of separation. But do you see any challenges or maybe dangers as we try to think about this exception? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. One, it's helpful to know not, I mean, The concept is fear of sovereignty. There's not a monopoly on sort of one way to apply it. There are differences. And yeah, I think within that, there's number one, like how precisely can we really say that the Bible lays out, this is the exact sphere of the government and the church and the family and individual, or however many spheres you have, how precisely can we say that's laid out? And then secondly, what do we do when there's overlap? And probably all of us would acknowledge that there are times that overlaps. Simple examples like fire codes. Is the government infringing on our sort of right to worship when they say church buildings should be like any other building where there's sort of a certain safety fire code that we enforce. Personally, I don't think the government's wrong to do that. I would say that they're sort of within their lane in that respect. Or probably all of us would agree, you know, in general, of course, the government needs to respect parental rights, but there can be extreme cases where there's serious abuse or neglect where we would kind of want there to be some recourse, someone who would step in and we might look to the state to do that. So there's overlap and I think there can be some legitimate question about where exactly are these lines and how do we define these spheres. I read a statement, I think this was back in week two from something called the Frankfurt Declaration, which was written by fellow Christians, and sort of responding to issues of the Christian in the state. And part of the quote I read was, they said,

we reject any restrictions on individual freedoms for people who are not infected with any contagious life-threatening disease. This includes the implementation of vaccine passes, social distancing, or mask wearing, as a general prerequisite for access to public places or for participation in work or social life.

Personally, I wouldn't sign that. because I think it's sort of based on sort of an overly precise delineation that we can say this is exactly where those lines are. And, you know, I just, I have to think, are there, is that always where I would come down? You know what I mean? What if COVID was much, much, much more deadly? Might that have changed some things? So I really wanna say should never, under any circumstances, lay down something like a mask mandate. I personally am hesitant to say that, and wherever you land on that, the point is simply to get there, we have to think carefully about, okay, How clearly do we think scripture delineates this is the exact sphere? And this is the sphere over here. And then one other consideration as we wrestle with this is, you know, even if we do feel like we can say, here's the sphere for the state, and we think it's pretty limited, okay? So if we're in the camp that's gonna say, you know, the state should focus on rewarding righteousness and punishing evil. so that they should be pretty small. Well, does that automatically mean that the moment they seem to be overreaching, that we're justified in disobeying? Just one example, what about building code requirements? I'm living in this world right now. It is amazing how many requirements there are. And even if I feel like they are overreaching, they shouldn't be going so far, does it automatically mean disobeying is justified there? I think as a parallel example, just think about how we tend to think about parental authority. Probably all of us have a category for the overbearing parent that is maybe their child is becoming a teenager and you're thinking like, you really got to give a little bit of leash. Like, you know, you got to let the child grow up and you shouldn't sort of overreach. You're kind of going outside your lane a little bit. But does that mean that when we see the parent doing that, we're going to tell the child, well, you don't have to obey your parent because they're going too far. I mean, I think we would have it, we're going to tend to want to tell the child, no, no, you obey. And maybe if you sit down and you know the parent well, you might say, you know, I really would encourage you to give a little more leash. And so my point here is simply to say, I think as we wrestle with sphere sovereignty, we have to have both. On one hand, I think we can say it's a legitimate concept. And there comes a time, I mean, I gave the example of the hymns, where I think we would be right to say, I'm not going to comply with that. You're reaching to try to control something that's outside your sphere of authority. That's a category. At the same time, I think it's important that we keep in mind, you know, scripture is not completely explicit about where those spheres are. So I need to have some humility and be careful about how precisely I try to define everything. And then I also need to say, even if they're starting to go a little bit beyond what I think would be good and healthy and right, that doesn't automatically mean, okay, therefore disobeying is sort of fully justified. I need to rest with those things. Yes? are we seeing that colleges who don't really accept the federal funding for their students, if they do, like Jacob once happened to be in college. And so they don't think they're funding, they don't think they'll get, because then they are driving themselves to having to comply with the overreach of saying you have to have so many of this, that, and the other thing. And so these are very serious things that we are already seeing in our world, where the government, through funding, is trying to say, OK, we're in control. Or people who've been put out of business because they don't enforce or they own a bakery, and they don't want to do a wedding for a same-sex couple. Yeah, I mean, I think as our society shifts further and further away from any semblance of a Christian worldview, we're going to start running up against those kinds of things more and more. That's part of where I hopefully having, you know, well, in this conversation, we're certainly not able to address all of those things. Like those are questions we're going to need to address with one another and we're going to be facing. So I hope this will foster good conversation. Dara. Yeah, so great question. So Romans 13, you'll notice how both there and also in 1 Peter 2, Paul sort of indirectly by saying, well, what is the government doing? Well, they're promoting good, they're proving of what's good, and they're bearing the sword to punish evil. So Paul doesn't say, well, that's the limit of the government's authority, but those would be passages people would really lean into to say, but hey, that clearly tells us that that's a key part of what the what God intends for the government to be doing. So I think that's where there's, the ambiguity can come in, because we see certain things like that, that scripture positively says the government's supposed to do. So I'm, no question, is the government supposed to enforce, you know, some basic standard of justice in society? Well, biblically, I can say yes, based on Romans 13. The question is, how much further out from that do you get? So, Andrew? Yeah. Yeah, we're going to have to wrestle through it together, show each other grace, try to learn. Well, in the interest of time, let's look at this next possible exception, which would be, what about if the government is sort of ignoring or violating our own constitution? The idea here is, of course, our nation has a constitution that the state is under. So if the authorities are making demands or laws that go against it, then We wouldn't have to follow them. So I think one pretty clear example would be, you know, if a police officer demands that you let him search your house with no warrant, I think in our nation under our constitution, you're justified saying no, right? Our government secures certain freedoms and protections, and I'm going to appeal to that. I'm not refusing to be subject to governing authorities by not complying with this particular authority who's acting sort of out of line. However, what about this case? You know, our Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms. So does that mean that you're justified in amassing an arsenal of grenade launchers, some tactical nukes, all sorts of weapons of your choice in your basement. So David says yes. Is that unanimous? Is there anyone? Okay. Matt? I think as we're already experiencing, I mean, part of the issue is that the Constitution has to be interpreted. Well, what did they mean? What did they have in mind? I mean, is there any sort of limit there or not? And we have to realize, I mean, that the Constitution is part of a broader system of government that actually makes provision for how it's gonna be interpreted. That's why we have this whole court system that's supposed to sort of help settle that. And so on one hand, I think, yes, we can appeal to the Constitution. There's a valid way to do that. But at the same time, I think we have to keep in mind that we cannot appeal to the Constitution the same way that we can appeal to the Bible. I mean, the Bible is the inerrant, unchangeable word of God. And if other people are misinterpreting the Bible, we can say, no, God says. But when you appeal to the Constitution, you're appealing to a fallible, amendable document of men. And so while we certainly can appeal to it, in fact, just a couple examples. Grace Community Church in Los Angeles made a lot of news for not obeying COVID lockdown rules, and they ultimately wound up winning a lawsuit against the state. Meanwhile, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which as far as I know, actually obeyed all of the lockdown rules, and yet simultaneously, they filed a lawsuit against, I think it was the city of DC, and they won that. And so there's two examples where actually, by appealing to the Constitution, ultimately, you know, courts ruled in and said, hey, You're in the right. So that can be done. But at the same time, I think if we're in a position where we want to say, well, the Constitution says this, and I interpret it like this, and even though the governing authorities don't interpret that way, even though our court system doesn't interpret that way, I'm going to stand here on my interpretation. I think that's where we're starting to get out on a wire. Because, you know, at the end of the day, you know, God has not, like the Constitution and the philosophy of the Constitution of, you know, we operate under the consent of the governed and these kinds of things. I think those can be really good things that we hold to, that we promote, that we want to see. But where do we go to in Scripture to justify not doing what God says in Romans 13 of being subject to the governing authorities. And I think we have to remember, I mean, even the government Paul's talking about here, when he tells the Romans to submit to the Roman government, that was a government that used to be a republic and had actually become a fairly totalitarian empire. And so, again, they had moved away from consent of the governed, and I think that should just, you know, give us pause about thinking, I can just sort of individually disobey the government on the grounds of the Constitution, even if there's no sort of legal backing or anything like that, without saying, but here's the grounds from the Bible, and we want to stand on Scripture there as much as we can. which, you know, this church as I mentioned, they were ultimately, you know, appealing to scripture even while pursuing legal courses. Yes. I think it's a good time to just bring up this idea, you know, for thinking about this for a while. A lot of people, I think, maybe in previous generations, more so than now, had an idea of, like, America as a tradition. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's really helpful. In the interest of time, I'm going to try to push us to the last point just so we can finish. I'm sorry. So number six, final kind of possible exception. What if the government is telling me to do something that violates my conscience? What should I do? Now, on one hand, we might say, well,

it's never safe or right to go against conscience.

Luther said that. I think he's right. I mean, do not take breaking your conscience lightly. On the other side, our consciences can be wrong. Keep in mind, when God told Peter,