July 22, 1997
Mandy shut her eyes and shouted, “There, you’re gone. I made you disappear.”
Her pesky brother laughed back, “You wish!”
Major segments of the population wouldn’t last long if shutting our eyes could make them go away. Neither would any other offensive realities. Nevertheless, recently elected members of the Michigan Board of Education have decided to try it anyway.
They voted five to three against certain portions of their mission statement. The unwanted and offensive parts “thanked God for the blessings of freedom,” and said “children are created by God” and “religion is necessary for good government.” Those statements are supposedly “a violation of laws concerning separation of church and state.”
Is that really the intent of that mission statement and those laws? By its nature, the church (at least as described in the Bible) is a group of people under the sovereign rule of Jesus Christ. It cannot be ruled by anyone else and still be the church. However, in the days of the Roman Empire, the emperors were declared head of the church regardless of their spiritual qualifications. They ruled as they pleased. This often resulted in not only bad government but in serious spiritual deterioration in the church. More recently, Christians have welcomed laws that protect the church’s unique submission to Christ from being undermined by ungodly political entities.
At the same time, the Bible teaches that we are to “submit to the governing authorities” unless they demand we disobey God. In a normal sense, “they are God’s servants to do us good” (Romans 13). The idea is that political leaders should also submit themselves to God so their rule is wise and just. God had no intention that leaders abandon a genuine, biblical religion.
Even though political abuse of God’s principles once motivated laws to protect the church from political domination, now the church is considered a threat to political entities. In an odd turnabout, leaders are using these same laws to keep God and God-fearing people from having a voice in the way they govern. This has gone so far as to strike mention of God and religion from anything remotely connected to government activities and documents. It is as if they think that by putting both out of sight, God and religion will simply disappear.
Apart from using separation of church and state to keep God from political and legal arenas, many individuals also try to shut their eyes to God. While they may want a God who is there when they need Him, as in tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes, they push Him out of day-to-day decision making. Unless disaster strikes, both individuals and governing bodies would rather try and make Him disappear than admit any need for help from Him.
The psalmist observed a similar foolishness in his day. He asks, “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against His Anointed One. ‘Let us break their chains,’ they say...”
He goes on, “The One enthroned in heaven laughs. . . I have installed my King on Zion...”
God has firmly established Christ as Sovereign King over all. Shutting our eyes or pretending He does not exist will not make Him vanish. According to God, He is Lord, whether we say so or not.
As for religion, people who “thank God for the blessings of freedom” should appreciate and safeguard that freedom. People who know they are “children created by God” should respect themselves and others. People who feel that “religion is necessary for good government” should bring godly wisdom and fairness into their political activities.
Shutting out God will not make Him go away but what will happen if closing our eyes to Him instead shuts out freedom, respect, and justice?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, March 17, 2017
Monday, April 4, 2016
Christianity cannot be legislated .................. Parables 414
March 29, 1994
A few weeks ago, a senior federal judge in Texas ordered a woman and her four children to attend church each week for a year. The judge also advised the woman to not have any more children without a husband. He said, “I know there are all sorts of constitutional questions about this, but I just thought if I put her on probation... it would do a whole lot more good...”
“Constitutional questions” indeed. What about separation of church and state? Does it mean no one in the legal system can use “church” as probation for a crime? Can judicial action like this lead to disintegration of personal and civil rights?
Historically, political leaders first tolerated the church then persecuted its members but around A.D. 300, Roman emperor Constantine decided that it was to the advantage of the Empire to declare Christianity the state religion. Since he had the clout to enforce such a decree, most people made a profession of faith, whether or not they really believed. With that, the known world became “Christian.”
For several hundred years, politics and church were far from separate. If the head of the Roman Empire and the head of the Roman church did not agree, the stronger one ruled, both politically and in matters of religion.
During the Reformation, several Christian leaders decided that because of corruption, both politically and ecclesiastically, these two institutions should be separate. In other words, their faith would not be dictated by the king.
However, many thought political leaders were responsible to maintain the faith. That is, according to Scripture, the government was under God for the purpose of maintaining law and order and to make sure the church was protected. So, while many Christians refused government interference in doctrinal matters, they welcomed Christian leaders who would look after their best interests.
It has seldom worked. Perhaps power corrupts, but the fact of the matter is, true faith can neither be legislated or enforced using political means. The Gospel is a spiritual message requiring a personal decision. Neither Constantine or judges in Texas can make anyone become a lover of God against their will.
On the other hand, the Gospel is a power to be reckoned with. Through it, people have been fully convinced of their sin, fully made aware of their need for forgiveness, and fully released from the power of sin that controls them. Men and women who once hated Christians have been transformed into God-fearing Christians themselves.
The judge in Texas did have another option. According to the strict letter of the law, the woman’s crime called for a prison sentence, which would separate her from her children. They would be wards of the state and put into institutions or placed in foster care.
Since the judge had enough clout to go contrary to current thinking about church and state, he took a chance. Going to church would not automatically reform that mother’s ways yet there is a possibility that the power of the Gospel will set her free from her criminal habits. As Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
If being made to go to church sets her free from a life of crime, how can the constitution, or anyone else, fault that judge’s decision?
A few weeks ago, a senior federal judge in Texas ordered a woman and her four children to attend church each week for a year. The judge also advised the woman to not have any more children without a husband. He said, “I know there are all sorts of constitutional questions about this, but I just thought if I put her on probation... it would do a whole lot more good...”
“Constitutional questions” indeed. What about separation of church and state? Does it mean no one in the legal system can use “church” as probation for a crime? Can judicial action like this lead to disintegration of personal and civil rights?
Historically, political leaders first tolerated the church then persecuted its members but around A.D. 300, Roman emperor Constantine decided that it was to the advantage of the Empire to declare Christianity the state religion. Since he had the clout to enforce such a decree, most people made a profession of faith, whether or not they really believed. With that, the known world became “Christian.”
For several hundred years, politics and church were far from separate. If the head of the Roman Empire and the head of the Roman church did not agree, the stronger one ruled, both politically and in matters of religion.
During the Reformation, several Christian leaders decided that because of corruption, both politically and ecclesiastically, these two institutions should be separate. In other words, their faith would not be dictated by the king.
However, many thought political leaders were responsible to maintain the faith. That is, according to Scripture, the government was under God for the purpose of maintaining law and order and to make sure the church was protected. So, while many Christians refused government interference in doctrinal matters, they welcomed Christian leaders who would look after their best interests.
It has seldom worked. Perhaps power corrupts, but the fact of the matter is, true faith can neither be legislated or enforced using political means. The Gospel is a spiritual message requiring a personal decision. Neither Constantine or judges in Texas can make anyone become a lover of God against their will.
On the other hand, the Gospel is a power to be reckoned with. Through it, people have been fully convinced of their sin, fully made aware of their need for forgiveness, and fully released from the power of sin that controls them. Men and women who once hated Christians have been transformed into God-fearing Christians themselves.
The judge in Texas did have another option. According to the strict letter of the law, the woman’s crime called for a prison sentence, which would separate her from her children. They would be wards of the state and put into institutions or placed in foster care.
Since the judge had enough clout to go contrary to current thinking about church and state, he took a chance. Going to church would not automatically reform that mother’s ways yet there is a possibility that the power of the Gospel will set her free from her criminal habits. As Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
If being made to go to church sets her free from a life of crime, how can the constitution, or anyone else, fault that judge’s decision?
Monday, January 4, 2016
The Bible and Politics ............. Parables 374
June 15, 1993
Next to sports and entertainment, the most prevalent topic in an average daily newspaper is politics, politicians and political issues.
During elections, the stories multiply. Many of them debate which hopeful is the best or the worst candidate for leadership. Some quote platform promises.
Some of those promises sound much like Absalom, son of King David, who wanted the throne of his father: “If only I were appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that he gets justice” (2 Sam 15:4).
Verse 5 says Absalom “reached out his hand, took hold of and kissed” everyone who came and honored him. He was a clever (but underhanded) politician who “stole the hearts of the men of Israel.”
A few hundred years later, a king named Herod also made some interesting political moves. When John the Baptist told him it was “not lawful” that he stole his brother’s wife (Matthew 14:4), Herod was upset. He wanted to put John to death; however he feared the people who thought John was a prophet. So put him in prison instead. But Herod’s wife ruled the king. She managed to trick him into a situation where he was pressured to save face in front of his followers. The only way to do it was by beheading John after all.
Not long after that, a certain governor named Pilate asked an angry crowd why he should pass sentence on an innocent man (Matthew 27). They responded with even louder demands for that man’s death. Pilate realized he was not getting anywhere so he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, declared this man’s blood was on their hands.
These stories point out both leaders and followers have some responsibility to hold to legal and moral standards. In that sense, Herod and Pilate not only failed, but so did the people whose demands swayed their decisions.
In the usual sense, neither were even leaders. Both listened to whoever made the most noise or put the most pressure on them (which seems to be the democratic way) rather than stand firm for law and justice. They let fools without concern for truth or right tell them what to do.
Herod’s biggest concern was his public opinion poles. Pilate may have had some sense of legality but his fear of explaining a Jewish riot to his Roman superiors overrode his fear of making an illegal decision. Then he wouldn’t take responsibility, but he did tell the crowd they were guilty of killing the Son of God.
Obviously everyone is responsible for good government. The Bible says leaders should obey God and do right. It also says followers are to pray for their leaders and obey them. If we don’t like what they do, sometimes it is because they are merely listening to whoever is making the most noise.
In a democracy, where leadership represents the wishes of voters, we are also responsible for the demands we make. We are responsible for letting them know what we appreciate as well. Sadly, even good leaders only hear grumbling. David was the best king Israel ever had, yet all some could think of was get him off the throne and put in someone like Absalom, who was dishonest and deceitful, in his place.
Even though she sometimes doesn’t like current political policies, my mother often says we get the government we deserve. Maybe she is right.
Next to sports and entertainment, the most prevalent topic in an average daily newspaper is politics, politicians and political issues.
During elections, the stories multiply. Many of them debate which hopeful is the best or the worst candidate for leadership. Some quote platform promises.
Some of those promises sound much like Absalom, son of King David, who wanted the throne of his father: “If only I were appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that he gets justice” (2 Sam 15:4).
Verse 5 says Absalom “reached out his hand, took hold of and kissed” everyone who came and honored him. He was a clever (but underhanded) politician who “stole the hearts of the men of Israel.”
A few hundred years later, a king named Herod also made some interesting political moves. When John the Baptist told him it was “not lawful” that he stole his brother’s wife (Matthew 14:4), Herod was upset. He wanted to put John to death; however he feared the people who thought John was a prophet. So put him in prison instead. But Herod’s wife ruled the king. She managed to trick him into a situation where he was pressured to save face in front of his followers. The only way to do it was by beheading John after all.
Not long after that, a certain governor named Pilate asked an angry crowd why he should pass sentence on an innocent man (Matthew 27). They responded with even louder demands for that man’s death. Pilate realized he was not getting anywhere so he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, declared this man’s blood was on their hands.
These stories point out both leaders and followers have some responsibility to hold to legal and moral standards. In that sense, Herod and Pilate not only failed, but so did the people whose demands swayed their decisions.
In the usual sense, neither were even leaders. Both listened to whoever made the most noise or put the most pressure on them (which seems to be the democratic way) rather than stand firm for law and justice. They let fools without concern for truth or right tell them what to do.
Herod’s biggest concern was his public opinion poles. Pilate may have had some sense of legality but his fear of explaining a Jewish riot to his Roman superiors overrode his fear of making an illegal decision. Then he wouldn’t take responsibility, but he did tell the crowd they were guilty of killing the Son of God.
Obviously everyone is responsible for good government. The Bible says leaders should obey God and do right. It also says followers are to pray for their leaders and obey them. If we don’t like what they do, sometimes it is because they are merely listening to whoever is making the most noise.
In a democracy, where leadership represents the wishes of voters, we are also responsible for the demands we make. We are responsible for letting them know what we appreciate as well. Sadly, even good leaders only hear grumbling. David was the best king Israel ever had, yet all some could think of was get him off the throne and put in someone like Absalom, who was dishonest and deceitful, in his place.
Even though she sometimes doesn’t like current political policies, my mother often says we get the government we deserve. Maybe she is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)