What Does the Bible Say About the Civil Magistrate?

 

". . . My thesis is that secularism necessarily implies dictatorship and totalitarian rule.  . . . The result is state control of religion and of all human good, nothing excepted.  . . . "

“The Confession in section i states that it is God who has ordained civil magistrates.  Their authority comes from him;  therefore, they cannot rightfully act as dictators; their just powers are only those which God has assigned them.”  Dr. Gordon H. Clark

 

What Is Christian Nationalism?  What  Does the Bible Say About the Civil Magistrate?

 

Once again I must answer the objections of the libertarians and the radical two kingdoms proponents.  Their contention is that the secular governments must be obeyed no matter what, based on what the apostle Paul says in Romans 13:1-10.  But is this what the Bible really says? 

I am not sure what the term Christian nationalism means, since the definition varies depending on whom you ask.  R. Scott Clark of the Heidelblog defines the term this way:

The West is declining rapidly and in response some American Christians have begun arguing for a return to theocracy and even for a theocratic Caesar figure to replace the secular republican form of government established in the Constitution.  (From: Heidelblog: Resources on Christian Nationalism).

The first assumption which R. S. Clark makes is that “some American Christians are arguing for a return to theocracy.”  Unfortunately, Clark does not define the term theocracy as it is applied in modern times.  The term, as I have always understood it, refers to the biblical theocracy which occurred during the time of the judges and the theocracy under the leadership of Moses, Aaron, and later, Joshua.  But, if this is the biblical definition of theocracy, then I am not aware of any Evangelical Christians of any kind today who advocate for that sort of theocracy or any theocracy whatsoever; that would include the theonomists and the reconstructionists. 

I suppose that might imply the issue of civil religion such as what happened when Billy Sunday was an evangelist in the early part of the twentieth century.  Billy Sunday was a supporter of the war effort during WWI and raised money to support that effort.  As a result of Sunday’s support of the temperance movement and the war effort, it became popular among “fundamentalist” churches to display both the American flag and the Christian flag inside the church.  However, whenever I see someone accused of being a fundamentalist during the first half of the twentieth century, I usually see that as Evangelical.  The fundamentalists of yesterday are the Evangelicals of today.  Unfortunately, the neo-Evangelicals have hijacked the term when in fact they disagree with both the oldline fundamentalists and the conservative Evangelicals of today.

The radical two kingdoms point of view is that churches and pastors should never comment on political issues, while they themselves openly comment on political issues every single time they complain about Christian nationalists.  This sort of double standard is par for the course for Democrats.  Therefore, it makes me suspicious that most of these radical two kingdoms theologians and church historians are actually progressive Democrats in their political views.  The time for pretending that churches and pastors have no solid political commitments is over.  That’s because our democratic republic is quickly devolving into political chaos and open anarchy.

There was a time when the Christian worldview was predominate over the leftist and Marxist worldview in the United States and European countries.  Even the Roman Catholic nations were at one time more politically and morally conservative.  However, now even the Roman Catholic nations are becoming more secular and atheistic in their political orientations.  Even worse, the pope and the Roman Catholic Church is now openly promoting the ideology of the LGBTQIA+ agenda by saying that homosexuality and perversion should not be illegal.  Protestants and Evangelicals who are “woke” are promoting the same sort of nonsense.  First of all, there is nothing immoral about outlawing what God’s moral law outlaws.  To make the point even clearer, the pope and a majority of the Catholic bishops in America and Europe claim to be against abortion and the pro-choice ideology but do not wish to make abortion illegal in their nations.  Neo-Evangelicals are in complete agreement with this approach and so are the radical two kingdoms theologians and churches.

The question therefore is who decides what is right and wrong in the political realm?  The radical two kingdoms people have ceded the argument to the secular humanists, who they say get to determine moral laws in the political realm, while the church should stay in the closet and say nothing when genocide and perversion predominates the larger society and culture.  The trouble with that approach is eventually Christianity itself is made illegal.  An example of that is the current issue of sex change operations performed on minors at almost any age.  The public schools are openly propagandizing and proselytizing young people for the so-called transgender movement and homosexuality.  Some conservative political pundits refer to this as grooming children for future members of the LGBTQIA+ movement.  This is because the Marxist left and the progressives have turned the tables on Evangelicals and conservative Christians.  The Christian church has always catechized the youthful members of the congregation, knowing that the younger a person reads, studies and believes the Bible, the more likely that child is to persevere in the Christian faith.  (Proverbs 22:6).

Some who profess to follow the apologetics of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark affirm a form of political libertarianism which, for all practical purposes, agrees with the apparent moral relativism of the radical two kingdoms proponents.  However, Jesus said that there can be no neutrality in matters of morality.  I take that to mean more than just personal piety but also in ecclesiastical politics and the civil government.  In fact, Jesus was arrested and crucified by both the religious and political authorities of his day.  But Jesus did not say do not get involved.  What He said was:

“And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.” (Luke 9:23–26, KJV)

Does this sound like Jesus wanted Christians to hide from the world and say nothing about morality, the moral law or the Gospel?  I think not.  Of course, we as Christians must show prudence in dealing with employers and employees with whom we work in the secular realm.  But does it mean that Christian churches should take no political positions on moral and ethical issues, that Christian churches should not encourage their members to support political movements which stand for the Bill of Rights and other Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms?  Again, I think they should be involved.  After all, the liberal and progressive churches have no such qualms.  Their moral relativism has become the law of the land.  Evangelical Christians and churches have been attributed with false guilt.  They are called homophobic deplorables, transphobic, white nationalists, white supremacists, racists, and a host of other abusive ad hominems in the name of silencing theological, moral, and political dissent from a biblical perspective and the Christian worldview perspective.

The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark would not have agreed with the political moral relativism of the libertarian variety.  Libertarians have only one moral law:  Do no harm to others.  But this is a vague and vacuous imperative since the proposition does not even appeal to a universal moral standard.  Instead it appeals to an unbiblical standard:

“And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance. In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:24–25, KJV)

When there is no moral leadership from Evangelical churches in their local cities, counties, and the state or commonwealth in which they reside, there is an aggressive attack on Christianity at large nationally and locally.  Evangelicals need to organize at every level, including nationally.  Otherwise, the United States of America is on the same trajectory as Canada and Europe.  An increasingly tyrannical totalitarianism will continue to push against Christianity until they control even the local churches.  If the fake pandemic is any indication, the progressives have the power to shut down religious freedoms and Evangelicals just go along with it like sheep to the slaughter.  Christian ministers in Canada can be arrested for daring to say that homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order or a sinful rebellion against God. 

I am not advocating the confusion of the law and gospel, nor am I advocating for any so-called Christian nationalism.  What I am advocating for is that Christian churches and pastors stop ignoring their moral duty to stand against immorality, crime and the loss of religious liberties in our nation and our local states and cities.  When Jesus commanded us to evangelize the nations, He was not just advocating the evangelizing of individuals but the evangelizing of entire nations and regions.  The Apostle Paul took this seriously and made at least three missionary journeys.  Was Paul colonizing for the white race?  I do not think so.  Christianity is for all nations, tribes, and peoples.  Every kind and class of human beings is called in the general call of the gospel; rich, poor, kings and paupers and every gender and race are all to be evangelized without compromising the moral law or the gospel whatsoever--that would include evangelizing atheists and homosexuals and transgendered homosexuals.  But Christians should not be duped into buying into the lie that the homosexuals and transgenders are not morally responsible because they are born with a sexual orientation that is essentially biologically and genetically predetermined.  There is no biblical support for imposing a materialistic or behavoristic excuse for immorality upon the Christian churches or Christian individuals.

Dr. Clark repudiated the idea that humans are biological machines, a theory developed by Thomas Hobbes; he also rejected naturalism, behaviorism, and secularism.  The following comment on the Westminster Confession’s chapter on free will is exemplary:

What then does the Confession mean by the natural liberty of the will?  The remainder of the section quoted answers this question as well as two lines can.  Man’s will “is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined.”  These words were written to repudiate those philosophies which explain human conduct in terms of physico-chemical law.  Although the Westminster divines did not know twentieth century behaviorism, nor even Spinoza, they very probably knew Thomas Hobbes, and they certainly knew earlier materialistic theories.  That man’s conduct is determined by inanimate forces is what the Confession denies.  Man is not a machine;  his motions cannot be described by mathematical equations as can the motions of the planets.  His hopes, plans, and activities are not controlled by physical conditions.  He is not determined by any absolute necessity of nature.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today.  1965.  Second Edition.  (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 2001).  P. 106.

The secularists contend that there are human rights which are independent of any divine moral law or divine imperative.  Instead, they propose a materialistic and a humanistic approach which is supposed to reduce human suffering to the lowest common denominator.  Of course, to accomplish their goals they take a utilitarian approach to attaining their political and moral superiority.  The end justifies the means according to them; and they openly state this when they comment on abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, sex change mandates, and their contention that they will not allow President Trump to be re-elected—even if the majority of the states’ populations votes for him.  They openly admit that they will use pandemics, their relativizing of the rule of law, and whatever other means, including disinformation and propaganda, to keep our democratic republic from electing a popular president.  According to the secular humanists, evil is merely an existential experience of human suffering, not a violation of divine moral law.  This is why they appeal to climate change, pandemics, lockdowns, open borders, and sexual deviancy to justify their totalitarian tactics.  They also use racial divisions and male and female issues to gain power.

But once again, Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s comments are amazingly applicable even in our contemporary political and moral situation.  Although his remarks are directed particularly at the issue of plenary verbal inspiration and the inerrancy of the Bible, his comments also apply to the political realm:

A second objection to verbal and plenary inspiration can be reproduced by repeating a verse previously quoted. The verse was, “The Scripture which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake.” And the rejection is the great outcry against the theory of mechanical dictation. The liberals regularly accuse orthodox Christians to reducing the prophets to the status of typewriters, or at most, stenographers. This makes them machines and violates their personality. Since it is unthinkable that God would violate anyone’s personality, the doctrine of verbal inspiration must be rejected no matter what the Bible says.

In answer to this objection, I would like to make a minor point and a major point. Actually, it is hard to tell which of these points is major and which is minor. But one is more remote and fundamental, the other is immediate and direct. The more remote and fundamental reply is the denial of the liberal concept of God on which their concept is based. For the liberal, man has certain rights that God cannot violate. Man is in some way independent of God and God is in some way subject to rules of justice that he did not set up. The Bible however presents a sovereign God who out of the same lump of clay create [sic] one man to honor and another to dishonor. No man has the right to complain to God and ask, “why has thou made me thus?”

Obviously, God has created rocks and trees, birds and elephants. And no bird has the right to complain that it is not an elephant. Similarly, God is sovereign in creating men. And if he has created some men to be used as typewriters at times, no one has a right to complain. Hence the first reply to the liberals is to reject their notion of the relation between God and man. God is not man’s valet nor even his cosmic pal and co­pilot. God is the sovereign creator against whom no one has any claim whatever.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  “The Inerrancy of the Bible.”  The Gordon H. Clark Foundation.  P. 6.

Whether the libertarians or the radical two kingdoms proponents wish to acknowledge it or not, nations and even the entire global human race, both individually and corporately, are morally accountable to God.  It follows, therefore, that churches and pastors and denominations are morally accountable to God for what they think, say, and do, and for what they omit to do in regards to the moral law.  This is a non-negotiable demand of the moral law, and not even Christians under the covenant of grace are exempt from keeping the moral law, albeit not as a covenant of works.  (See: Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19:5-7).  “V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it.”  (Ibid.).  The Bible clearly says that we must obey God rather men.  (Acts 5:29).  This means that when secular governments become tyrannical and threaten Christians and Christian pastors with jail time or loss of their employment for exercising their God given right to the freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the freedom of speech, they should instead obey what God plainly says the Holy Scriptures.  Jesus did not merely suggest such opposition but in fact commands it.  (John 15:18-25).

Gordon Clark succinctly opposes both libertarian relativism and secular humanism in these remarks:

. . . My thesis is that secularism necessarily implies dictatorship and totalitarian rule.  . . . The result is state control of religion and of all human good, nothing excepted.  . . . 

The Confession in section i states that it is God who has ordained civil magistrates.  Their authority comes from him; therefore, they cannot rightfully act as dictators; their just powers are only those which God has assigned to them.  What those powers are and what they are not is indicated here and there throughout the Bible; . . .

Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?, pp. 207-208.