Introduction
The topic of government has been ignored for the past few generations by many Christians. We have been told that since Christ’s kingdom is not of this world we don’t have a reason to bother with the government. There is the realm of the church, that is spiritual, and the realm of government, that is physical. Christians are more concerned with what happens in the spiritual realm, while the physical realm is not very consequential. Many Christians have also assumed that our government in the United States would continue to hold to a relatively Christian worldview, even if there were policies we did not like. Since Christians have abandoned this realm of discussion there is no united Christian understanding of God and government. We have bought the lie that separation of church and state means the separation of God and state. We have been told to submit to governing authorities, and as long as we do, we will be left alone to worship God on our corner. Recent events have proven all of this false. Christians must have a robust, thorough, and Christian view of the government. Without a proper understanding of government, we will see an increase of government power and that power will not stop where the church doors begin.
One well known church realized this over the summer in 2020. In the state of California, we were told that we could not gather in our churches for risk of spreading covid-19. Most, if not all, churches went along with this command from our government, yet as time passed and more data came out, it seemed that the lockdowns were not necessary. Christians wanted to gather, even if risk was involved in doing so. John MacArthur’s church Grace Community Church released a statement declaring why they were opening despite the command of the government to remain closed. It came down to separation of church and state, the separation of authority from God between family, church, and state.
However, while civil government is invested with divine authority to rule the state, neither of those texts (nor any other) grants civic rulers jurisdiction over the church. God has established three institutions within human society: the family, the state, and the church. Each institution has a sphere of authority with jurisdictional limits that must be respected. Read the full statement.
This response from such a large and well known church was a light of hope for many Christians who wanted to gather together again. However, we need to look into this topic ourselves to make sure that this is the proper view for us to take. We need to answer the following question: what is the role of government? How are Christians meant to submit to the government? Are Christians ever allowed to resist the government? We can answer these questions and apply them to our current situation with our government increasingly coming at odds with the conscience of the Christian. Once we have the groundwork set, we can also apply this understanding to the current discussions on vaccine mandates. For this, we need to go to Romans 13, the most famous, or infamous, passage that is brought up when the topic of Christian submission to government arises.
Romans 13
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
The Biblical Role of Government
Romans 13 we see that the government is meant to fulfill a specific role. In verses 3 and 4 we see that the government is here for the purpose of punishing those who do evil and praising or encouraging those who do good. This seems like a simple answer, but becomes more complex when we ask ourselves, “what is evil, and what is good?” If we get to decide what is evil and what is good as a people then good and evil are not objective, they are subjective. Unfortunately, this is the view of most people today! They think that we as a people come together, vote, and what we pass as law determines what is good and what is bad. Last week we spoke about abortion, and there are some who take the position, “I don’t like abortions, but it is legal, so I guess its okay for others to do.” This ignores objectivity and makes every topic of morality subjective. We know moral objectivity to be true, and if you push hard enough everyone has to admit objective standards have to exist or be shown to be inconsistent. Looking at past laws displays this. What about the laws during slavery? It was legal, but was it moral? Of course not! What about the laws in Germany during World War II? Should those hiding Jews in their homes turned them in because the law said so? Of course not! Something being legal, or illegal, is not what makes something morally good. When God says that the government punishes evil, He doesn’t mean the government is meant to punish whatever it determines on its own to be evil.
There is an objective standard of good and evil, and that standard comes from God. In Romans 13, we see that the government is meant to punish evil, according to God’s law, and encourage good, according to God’s law. We see this in verses 3 and 4 when Paul uses the term diakonos (in the Greek) to refer to the government and leituorgoi (in the Greek) to refer to their actions. These terms in the passage translate to minister of God and servant of God. You may recognize the English version of these terms better, being deacon and liturgy respectively. Both of these are religious terms, where the deacon is a servant in the church who performs, or helps in the performance of the liturgy of the church. Yet here Paul applies these terms to the government. This is because the government is not its own highest authority, it is a minister of God put in power to do the work of God. A government that does not do this is dishonoring to God and will be removed from power. This removal does not happen immediately, but we do see throughout the Old Testament that God brings judgment on any nation that does not honor God. We have also seen nation after nation throughout history do the same. Their reign of terror might last a while, but their rebellion against God always brings their destruction.
Our government, and every other government in existence, is to submit its authority to Christ. This is not unique to the government, nor is the government exempt from this. Those who view the government as the highest power have ignored what God has said about His own authority. When Jesus gives the Great Commission in Matthew 28 He tells His disciples that all authority has been given to Him in heaven AND on earth. This means exactly what it sounds like, Jesus is the highest authority. Most Christians are comfortable thinking of Jesus as the highest authority in heaven, or maybe even the highest authority of their individual life, but they become uncomfortable when told that Jesus is also King over everyone else’s life. Yet, scripture could not be more clear. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil. 2:9-11). This is because all things have been placed under Christ
Ephesians 1:22
And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church
Whether we acknowledge it or not, Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is above all. When we think about the government, we need to recognize it does not stand alone on its own authority. It gains its authority from God, and is subject to Him as a deacon, or servant, of His will and not its own.
Punishing Evildoers
As a minister of God, the first role of the government is to punish evildoers. Since they are to do so in accordance with God’s will, we need to examine God’s law to see how the government can correctly fulfill this role. Any government that desires to honor God should also desire to honor His law. Let’s take a look at a few passages to get a general understanding of how God’s law works.
Exodus 22:1-4
1 “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. 2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. 3 “But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4 “If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.
In Exodus 22 we see several concepts given to us about God’s law. First, any government that wants to honor God should implement a law that enacts restitution. This means that there is not a punishment set for a crime that does not have as its intended goal the restoration of the victim and the criminal. We see this in the above passage where the criminal is not thrown into prison for theft, but pays back what is owed. If we want to compare it to a modern day law, we can look at grand theft auto. If someone steals a car they can be charged with grand theft auto and as a result put in prison. Is this punishment a just law that brings restitution? Well, the victim doesn’t get restored here. His car is gone, he won’t get the money the car is worth through insurance, and might be able to win a civil suit for a fair payout, which according the the passage below should be roughly four to five times the worth of the car if it is destroyed, or two times the worth if it is returned. There is no restoration for the victim. The thief also does not see restoration. He will not be required to pay back what he stole. If he could, he would still be required to go to jail for his crime, where he won’t be able to provide for himself or his family (if he has one). Further, once out of prison, he will be treated like an outcast, marked by his record and unable to find work. Finally, the other citizens where this crime took place also receive the short end of the stick. Now, they must pay to keep the prison running where this man will be for several years. Why should they have to pay for his crimes?
If we really want to have laws that reflect God’s laws, we need to have laws that are aimed at restoration. This restoration does not mean light or minimal sentencing, but just sentencing. If you can pay back for your wrong, pay it back. If not, then you must work to pay off your debt. How it is that we have decided that sitting in a prison cell doing no work is in some way “paying your debt to society” is a notion I do not understand. Let the person work off their debt so true restoration can be made. We also see in this passage the right to self defense. Notice the portion on bloodguiltiness. If caught in the act of theft, you are allowed to defend yourself. This is because we don’t know the heart or intent of the intruder, and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes. However, once the criminal leaves, you are no longer in danger and seeking them out becomes vengeance rather than self defense. In this case, bloodguiltiness comes upon you if you chase them down and harm them. So, in all cases that we can, our laws should work to bring restoration by the paying off of debts.
There are also going to be cases where restoration is not possible. This is for especially heinous crimes that violate the image of God in a way that is irreconcilable. We see this in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 specifically about rape.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 “When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.
Here we see that God treats rape just like murder. It is as if you sought out your neighbor to murder them. God treats these cases seriously, and for this reason tells us that the government does not bear the sword for nothing. If you commit a crime that is this extreme, your life is forfeit. If our laws do not treat these crimes the same way, we are not honoring God and we are not punishing evil. In fact, if we remove the death penalty for rape and murder, we encourage their acts by not purging this wickedness from our lands. There have been cases where rape is punish by only two months in prison! How is that justice? How must the woman who is raped feel about this? Her attacker, who has violated the image of God and done an act that God equates to murder, is walking freely after spending a couple of months in a prison. It is not justice, and we must allow our government to bear the sword as God has given them the authority to.
The Praise of Those Who Do Right
Another role that the government takes up to the glory of God is the praise of those who do right. We see this in the passage from Romans 13 as well as in 1 Peter chapter 2.
1 Peter 2:13-14
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
Here we see that governments are to not only punish evildoers, but are also to praise those who do right. Once again, we have to understand God’s law and what it means to praise those who do right. We can once again go to God’s law for examples of these types of governmental actions. One such passage is from Leviticus 23.
Leviticus 23:22
‘When you reap the harvest of your land, moreover, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field nor gather the gleaning of your harvest; you are to leave them for the needy and the alien. I am the LORD your God.’”
This command comes in the midst of festivals and celebrations given to Israel. When they gather their harvest, they are not to gather the corners of the field, nor are they to gather what is gleaned, or dropped, while they harvest. These are to be left for the purpose of welfare. The topic of welfare is highly contested in our society. Some would point to passages such as these to show that the government is able to administrate the purposes of welfare. We must make some distinctions here to ensure we aren’t falsely attributing this passage to our desired political ends. First, we must note here that there is no middleman given in welfare. It is not the role of the government to gather together the corners of the field, nor is it said that the owner of the field is to give the corners of their field to the government so it can then be distributed for welfare purposes. What is left for welfare is left for the person, or people, who need the welfare. This removes the government as the middleman, while allowing the government to encourage the giving of welfare. This is beneficial for multiple reasons. First, when we allow the government to become the middleman in welfare we lose some of the produce of welfare. Today, when taxes are collected for the purpose of welfare, we don’t give those who are in need the money we pay in taxes dollar for dollar. Rather, the government takes a portion for the purposes of administration, and then gives the rest to those in need. Why would we not want the entire amount to go to those who need it? Second, when the government is given this role, it oversteps the bounds given by God. They are not to distribute or redistribute wealth. What we have done in allowing this is to create an atmosphere within our government that is ripe for corruption. We have allowed covetousness to take place. Why is it that so many political figures come out of their roles as millionaires? It is because we have given room for corruption to take place with our elected officials being the middleman. Exodus warns us about such leaders.
Exodus 18:21
“Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.
This warning is given, yet we elect officials that say they are going to work for our benefit, and they seem to continually work for their benefit. Laws are passed that are passed in the name of the common man, but are really going to benefit the politician and the large corporation. Welfare is then used as a mechanism to stay in power. “If you vote for me, I will provide welfare for you.” Some is given, but the rest is used for the benefit of the politician. Yet, we continually vote for the same corrupt politicians in the name of welfare.
The second reason we should not allow the government to become the middleman is because it is the forceful redistribution of wealth. God loves cheerful giving, not forceful giving.
2 Corinthians 9:7
Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Christians should desire to give, but God wants us to give cheerfully, not grudgingly or under compulsion. It would do us well to remember this when we look at the government. They can encourage giving, and we do this in the United States with tax deductions for charitable giving. This is a good use of law to encourage giving. Collecting taxes and then redistributing it as welfare is not the correct route. Another reason this is not a desirable route is because it breaks God’s law on who should receive welfare. 2 Thessalonians says that if someone is not willing to work, then they are not to eat either (2 Thessalonians 3:10). This is not a cruel command, but rather it is to prevent laziness. Welfare is meant to be for those who either cannot work, or are able to work but cannot fully provide for themselves. In these cases, welfare is a good practice, to ensure everyone can eat. Yet, if someone is lazy and does not want to work, we are not to give them welfare. When we give welfare to anyone, especially if it is done in the form of something like universal basic income, we encourage them to be lazy. If they are not willing to work, they do not eat.
The proper place for welfare is the church. The charge that many would have is, “well the church is not doing enough.” “ Since they can’t keep up, I would rather have the government provide for those in need rather than rely on the church.” “Not everyone believes, and not everyone goes to church, so relying on the church here does not work.” I can understand this response from a non-believer: they don’t trust in God. But, when someone who professes Christ says this, they show they have made a god out of the government and confused its role. It is they who dishonor God by supporting welfare through the state, not the Christian who desires the church to fulfill its role. We see constantly that Christians are called to be generous in the church, and so we should. If we want to be consistent as Christians, who oppose welfare through the state, we need to be willing to do the work ourselves. Many churches do, and the most charitable people in the world are Christians.
The Twisting the Scriptures on Giving
With the many passages that encourage welfare from Christians, there are also many people who attempt to twist these passages to support their own desires. They often take scripture out of context to push Christians towards government welfare programs, calling them hypocrites if they do not agree. We even see those who would support socialist or communist governments push these passages to support their views. I believe it would be beneficial to review these passages and show them in their proper context.
The book of Acts is full of passages that describe the welfare, charitable giving, and general collective works of the church. I would first like to reaffirm that Christians are meant to be giving people, and not to desire their possessions above others. We should be charitable and giving, and scripture encourages Christians to not regard their property above the needs of others. This means when a fellow believer is in need, we come to their side and don’t desire our possessions over our desire to help others. With that said, none of the passages in Acts, or anywhere else in scripture, removes the concept of personal property or makes a sin out of having great wealth. The sin is in trusting in your wealth. The first passage I would like to look at is from Acts chapter 2.
Acts 2:44-45
44 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
In this passage we see that Christians are selling their property and possessions and sharing the profit with all. We must pay attention here to the last part of the passage, which says, “as anyone might have need.” Here it is shown the purpose of the giving. The Christians of the early church are providing for the needs of fellow believers. Today’s understanding of the basic needs is ever-increasing. It now means food, a home, healthcare, and more all in the name of human rights. This is not the understanding at the time of the writing of scripture. Rather, your basic needs were food and shelter. This was usually a shared home with the person giving you this welfare, and food provided by the giver of the welfare. Anything beyond this goes beyond a basic need. This does not mean that Christians lack the desire to provide access to more than food and shelter, but these provisions are not included in welfare, rather they are included in services.
The next passage that is often taken out of context is from Acts 11:29. This passage has been said to be the influence for Karl Marx’s statement, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It will be quoted as such: in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. “See,” they say, “Karl Marx’s ideas should be shared by Christians.” The story changes when you take a look at this passage in context.
ACTS 11:28-30
28 One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. 29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. 30 And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.
Rather than being a passage that supports Karl Marx’s vision of the future, it is another passage about Christian charity. Each person gave due to the famine in order to cover the needs of those who were without food. It does not remove property, nor require distribution. The last passage I will discuss in this section is the best I have seen from the argument of the socialist. This comes from Acts chapter 4.
Acts 4:32
And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.
Here we see wording that actually does describe communal living amongst Christians. They did not consider their property to be their own, but it was common to all. It sounds quite communistic in its aim. Yet, once again, this passage is taken out of context. First, it ignores biblical anthropology. In the Marxist view humans are good by nature. The cause for the evils of the world are the power struggles that exist between the haves and the have nots. Once this power struggle is ended by the revolution, then evil will be gone. Scripture does not support this view of human behavior. Rather, it teaches that we are depraved and sinful. This is why every attempt at communism has failed. It is not because true communism hasn’t been tried, it is because when it is tried, humans always get in the way. The second problem comes with the view of abundance. The idea of “from each according to his ability” assumes that in this utopia there will be an abundance of goods. This abundance of goods will not be owned, but shared amongst all because of how much abundance there was. In this passage, as well as attempts at communism, the opposite is true. There is a shortage of goods, and the Christians are giving out of necessity. They were often the outcasts of society, the poor and the destitute. Their survival was made possible by the charitable giving of their brothers and sisters in Christ. Finally, this passage is given by socialists to support their ideas of socialism. They falsely assume this passage is meant to set an example for all behavior. If this were true, then why did the apostles not call out Lydia, who was a wealthy business owner? She owned much more than the apostles and many of the members of her church. Lydia did fulfill the example set in the passage from Acts 4 by considering her home and her resources as common to the saints. She allowed the disciples to stay with her, provided food and shelter, and even funded missionary journeys for them. Acts 4 is not saying that personal property is done away with, but rather that Christians are to be so generous with one another that when someone comes in need – and truly in need, not from their own greed or desires – then Christians give generously.
If we try to make welfare a role of the government, we are misunderstanding the separation of power and responsibility that scripture lays out for the government. Their role is to punish evildoers and promote good. When we expand the government beyond this, we make room for corruption and dishonor God and his word.
Christian Submission to Government
Now that we understand the proper role of government, we can return to our passage in Romans. Christians are commanded here to be submissive to the government. When a government properly honors God with its given role, no Christian should have a fear of their government. This is because Christians also desire to honor God with their lives, and should rejoice when evil is punished and good is encouraged. The questions are then raised, “what if the government is not honoring God? What if the government is oppressing and punishing good while praising evil? What if the government is overstepping its realm of authority?” If this is the case, should Christians still submit? The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is it depends. Christians are to honor their government leaders, pay taxes, and give custom where it is due (Romans 13:5-7). This cannot be avoided. We see the apostles giving examples of this. While they were proclaiming Christ, they continually honored the government. Their goal was not to overthrow their leaders, nor was their desire to force them to change. Their goal was to preach the gospel and to call to repentance. This preaching was not just for the people, but also for the government. Paul himself desired to go to Rome to preach in the house of Caesar. This was not so Caesar could believe in his heart and then continue ruling as a tyrant, but rather that the rulers would turn to Christ and honor Him with their actions. We are told to pray for our leaders and to give them honor.
Paul gives an example of how to do this in Acts 21 and 22. Paul is preaching in the temple and is attacked by the Jews. The Roman soldiers pull him out of the scuffle and save his life. While in their custody, Paul does not resist, but begs permission to speak.
Acts 21:39-40
39 But Paul said, “I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.” 40 When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them
Here Paul honors the authority of the government by asking permission. However, Paul is not a pushover and knows his rights as well. In the next chapter, when the Romans are preparing to scourge him, Paul speaks up to defend himself.
Acts 22:25-26
25 But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman.”
When the Romans are about to break the law, Paul speaks up. He still does so with respect. This serves as an excellent example for Christians. We can honor the government, but when they step out of their role and break God’s law, or the law of the land, we can call them out on it. This leads us to a Christian’s resistance to government.
Christian Resistance
It must be noted that Christians are not revolutionaries. When I speak of Christian resistance, I’m not referring to doing anything in the attempt to revolt or start a revolution. We aren’t going to storm the capital, or anything foolish like that. Rather, Christian resistance is the honoring of God above men. We see this done with the apostles when they are commanded by the religious leaders to no longer preach in the name of Jesus.
Acts 5:29
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
Here, the apostles know that it is better to honor God rather than men. This is the root of the Christian’s resistance to government. It is not a resistance to the proper authority of the government, but rather the resistance to dishonor God to the praise and approval of men. Christians don’t resist godly laws, but we do resist ungodly laws. We see this exemplified by the acts of the past with the underground railroad in the south or the hiding of Jews in Germany and other locations in Europe during World War II. We desire to honor God above man, and so will not follow laws that dishonor God.
I believe most Christians will read this and think to themselves, “yes! I agree.” Yet, there are many Christians that would condemn the apostles for preaching in public today, just as they did then. Some of the largest opposition street preachers get is from others who call themselves believers in Christ, and tell the street preachers that this is not the proper way to preach. Why don’t you tell that to the apostles? Those who oppose modern street preachers would tell the apostles they should have listened to the religious leaders, since they didn’t like the public preaching of Christ, either.
Christians need to recognize that this passage of honoring God above man isn’t about what we believe in our own minds, but is about the actions that take place because of what we believe. It goes far beyond who we worship, and affects how we worship. If we are going to honor God above men, we need to be willing to resist unjust laws. We have many examples in scripture of this. One such example comes from the Hebrew midwives in Egypt. They were commanded to kill the boys born amongst the Jews for fear of the Israelites becoming more powerful than the Pharaoh. The midwives did not follow this command, and lied to the Pharaoh when asked about it.
Exodus 1:15-21
15 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other was named Puah; 16 and he said, “When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them.” 20 So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. 21 Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them.
This is because the midwives knew that honoring the law of man above the law of God was not acceptable. They even lie to Pharaoh, yet God established them. God desires our obedience to Himself over the obedience to man. This is why He has set the realms of authority that He has, and He expects His followers to honor Him. When we do this, we need to be ready for persecution from the world. The disciples did this and were martyred for their faith. Are you willing to be martyred to honor God, or will you obey the wicked commands of men?
Applying the Lessons – Our Modern Government
It is possible for the Christian to both honor their leaders and disobey ungodly commands. We are to preach the gospel and call to repentance all those we come across, including those in government. When it comes to the United States, there are many things we are doing correctly, and many things we are not. The founding of our nation was built upon many Godly principles. This is due to the overwhelming Christian worldview shared by the founding fathers. Even those who were not believers were affected by the teachings that were pervasive in our society. Because of this, our laws reflect God’s laws in many areas. One way we do this is with the concept of separation of church and state. Normally it is the atheist that cries for separation of church and state. This is because both the atheist and the christian misunderstand the proper application of this concept. The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of God and state. Rather, it means that God has given different roles to the church and to the state. We see this in the Old Testament with Israel. Israel had priests and kings, and their roles were not to be exchanged. The priests had no control over the armies and the kingdom, and the king had no control over the temple or the practices therein. When king Uzziah broke this separation, he was punished by God.
2 Chronicles 26:16-18
16 But when he became strong, his heart was so proud that he acted corruptly, and he was unfaithful to the LORD his God, for he entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense. 17 Then Azariah the priest entered after him and with him eighty priests of the LORD, valiant men. 18 They opposed Uzziah the king and said to him, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron who are consecrated to burn incense. Get out of the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful and will have no honor from the LORD God.”
After this event, Uzziah was given leprosy by God for desecrating the temple. God takes this separation of responsibility seriously, and so should we. Christians should be the loudest ones shouting for separation of church and state, knowing it means that church and state both honor God while keeping to their realm of authority. This separation prevents corruption in the land. If only our state actually believed in this separation; it is their turn to uphold this separation and remove themselves from interacting with the practice of the church and any role beyond punishing evil and encouraging good.
We also have received the concept of innocence until proven guilty from scripture. This is not the norm in history; usually you are guilty until proven innocent. God gives command about providing adequate proof to give punishment.
Deuteronomy 19:15-19
15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16 “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
We see here that multiple witnesses are needed. We do a decent job at this in the United States, but there is room for improvement. For example, we do not do a very good job of punishing false witnesses. While there are laws that do punish false witnesses, they are often not enforced in cases where “social justice” has taken over. For example, we have many false rape accusations and hate crime hoaxes that go without punishment on the false witnesses. Several high profile cases have been dismissed in recent years in these areas. An even worse case of false witness comes from our law enforcement. It is considered a crime to lie to the police, FBI, or any other state or federal agents. Yet, they are allowed to lie to us. There are many cases of inmates who have been released from prison after years or decades from false witnesses within law enforcement. These agents of the government entrap innocent people, they lie to them about what will happen if they don’t confess, and get away with bearing false witness. So what is our solution to this? According to the passage above, those false witnesses should receive the penalty they wished to push upon the victim. Instead, all of us who were not involved end up footing the bill for these crimes as we pay for the settlements in our taxes. Cities and states don’t make money without taking it from us, so those multi-million dollar settlements are placed upon the citizens that were not involved in the case at all.
Our modern government also gives us another new development in history. Rather than the highest authority of the land abiding in a king or ruler, it abides in the law itself. Our elected officials are not the highest authority in the land, our constitution is. This was done intentionally by our founding fathers to protect us from corrupt leaders who would wish to rule by edict. In recent years our constitution has largely been ignored by our governing officials, and they assume themselves to be the highest authority. We need to call out this nonsense and return to viewing our constitution as the highest authority in the land. Our federal government has grown in power far beyond what is allowed in our constitution. Our house and senate were set up to represent the people and the state. Now, both represent the population, and there is an increasing push to allow simple majorities to rule. This is opposite of the desire set forth in the constitution. The intention is to prevent the majority from ruling over the minority; so check and balances are put in place to assure this. Yet, we have seen our representatives speak of the minority party “blocking progress.” Good, that is their job. No simple majority should get its way. Even if we desire the policies the simple majority would push, we should delight that our government functions to protect the minority opinion.
Our judicial and executive branches are not doing much better. Our supreme court judges move farther from defending the constitution and close to defending their political leanings. Rather than investigating the constitutionality of each law, they often rely on precedent. This is not their job. Bad precedent can, and often has been set. What if we considered slavery as a precedent? Everyone would see the obvious issue with relying on the past precedent. Yet, our judges rely on this to support their decisions, which are often in-line with their politics. Our presidents over the past several decades have increasingly relied on executive orders to pass law. This is an abhorrent abuse of power. Passing legislation is too slow and difficult, and our leaders desire quicker change. So, they declare emergencies and pass laws by edict. That is what dictators do; and our leaders are increasingly shifting into just that. They are now dictating our laws under the guise of health and safety.
This is nothing new. In fact, we have lost much of our freedoms under the guise of health and safety. For example, we have the Patriot Act. This law was passed under President Bush in the early 2000s. This was passed for our safety. We were told, “there are terrorists in our country right now, and we need to find them. We don’t want another September 11th to happen. To prevent it, we need to be able to track and monitor potential terrorists.” Americans responded, “sign me up!” Now, we have no right to privacy. You are being tracked by the government. Thanks to leakers, such as Edward Snowden, we know the government is tracking everything we do to the best of their ability. They have access to our devices at all times. This breaks the law that prohibits illegal searches and seizures. Yet, it is passed in the name of “safety.” Simultaneously, airport security, which is run by the TSA, a federal agency, is allowed to randomly search passengers. How has this one slipped by? It is literally a random search and seizure! Yet, because we desire safety, we approve of this breaking of our law. Now, with our current spending bill, congress desires to track our bank accounts. You will have no privacy left. C.S. Lewis commented on these tyrants who work for our “safety.”
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C.S. Lewis
We need to do better than this in our nation. What is great about our country is that we have the precedent, both in scripture and in the law of the land, to stand up against this tyranny. We don’t do so in a revolutionary way, but in a legal way. We can push back against the breaking of our own laws. We can call out our politicians and vote for people who will stand up for the proper application of our laws.
The Vaccine Mandates
As we attempt to reconsider the course of our nation and call out the corruption, tyranny, and over authoritarian nature of our current politicians, we must take a look at the vaccine mandates that are spreading in our nation. Once again, we have seen the government, mostly through dictatorial edict, push mandates upon us. These mandates have been done in the name of health and safety. Just like the laws above, we have been frogs boiling in a pot. We think, “well, this isn’t so bad. After all, it is for my safety.” Over time, the requirements for safety have increased. When Biden first stepped in as president, he mocked the idea that the vaccine would be mandated. Now, he is pushing mandates and encouraging the same from other elected officials. Yet, people take it in stride, “this is for our good, why would you be against it?”
It should be noted that I am not against vaccines, but rather the mandate of vaccines. There have been many vaccines produced that are widely used and beneficial to our society. These other vaccines are brought up often in support of mandates, but no such mandate exists. It has never been required to show your vaccine passport for polio to enter a restaurant, indoor event, or to fly on an airplane. There have also always been both medical and religious exemptions from vaccines. This is the course we need to take as a nation. If you believe the vaccine to be good, then attempt to convince others of it. Forcing vaccines on all is foolish. There are people that are allergic to some vaccine ingredients, or people with preexisting conditions that would make taking the vaccine dangerous. These people should not be forced to take it. There are others who object for religious purposes, and they should be allowed to do the same.
Furthermore, Christians should not be for vaccine mandates, especially in the church. God requires His people to gather, and we are not to add to His law in a way that prevents Christians from gathering. If we make it a requirement to be vaccinated to enter the church, we exclude people from the gathering and add to God’s law. This is a sin against God. There are Christians who push the vaccine as part of “loving neighbor.” This is a gross manipulation. Once again, Christians are adding to God’s law. There is no law about vaccination, so telling other believers, “if you do not take the vaccine you are sinning against God by not loving your neighbor,” you are adding to God’s law and breaking it yourself. This topic should not divide Christians. You should be able and willing to gather with any believers in the church, regardless of their vaccination status.
You might be asking, why would a Christian need a religious exemption from the vaccine? Aren’t Christians okay with vaccination? While Christians are okay with vaccination, we are not okay with pushing people to act against their conscience. This comes from Romans 14. In Romans 14, there is an issue with meat. Temple sacrifices were made to false gods, and then the meat was sold in the market. There were Christians that had no problems with buying and eating the meat from these sacrifices, because they knew their thanks was given to God for the food, and not to the false gods. However, there were other believers whose conscience would not allow them to eat the meat, knowing its original use. Paul tells the Christians that each of them should be convinced in his own mind, and able to give thanks to God in what he does. So, if you can eat the meat, eat it and thank God. If you cannot eat the meat, don’t eat it, and thank God for the food you do eat. Each of them must be convinced in their own mind and not attempt to push their conscience on the other. This is the case for gray areas: areas of obedience to Christ where no law exists. For example, we can’t leave murder up to the conscience of the individual because God outlaws murder. When it comes to vaccines, they fall in this area. If you can receive it and give thanks to God, give thanks. If not, then don’t take it.
Those Christians who do not feel right about taking the vaccines are the ones that can receive a religious exemption. This exemption is not for everyone, so there will be Christians who are vaccinated and Christians who receive exemptions. Neither should force their perspective on the other. Each should be convinced in his own mind, and able to give thanks to God. When we force the vaccine through mandates – which includes vaccination by compulsion, such as “you cannot travel, enter restaurants, etc. unless you are vaccinated” – we are breaking the conscience of the individual, because they take the vaccine under compulsion and not in thanks to God.
The question can then be asked, why would a Christian not want the vaccine? It could be that there is not yet long term data on the vaccine, or the fact that fetal cell lines are used in the production of the vaccines, or any number of reasons. I believe the largest reason is the religious nature of the response to covid-19. Founders ministry writer David Shrock covers this religious response well in this article. Shrock identifies the religious response below.
Covid as a religious experience comes into focus when we realize (1) how strongly people believe in the vaccine on the basis of a priestly class of advocates, (2) how the vaccine has created a moral divide with an in-group (the virtuous vaccinated) and an out-group (the unclean unvaccinated), (3) how the vaccine is treated as the only and “one size fits all” means of salvation, and (4) how the rhetoric surrounding the vaccine is filled with religious imperatives, public celebrations, government praise for the vaccinated and public threats of judgment on the unvaccinated, not to mention the public shaming of those who would desire further scientific evidence for the vaccines efficacy.
We see that (1) we are told to accept the words of the doctors, scientists, politicians, and media encouraging us to get the vaccine. There is a logical fallacy at play here. If you bring up the doctors, scientists, politicians, and media that do not agree with the mainstream narrative, you are told those aren’t real or reliable resources. They are silenced on social media and not allowed a voice in the mainstream. So, you must accept the word of the “orthodox” class of advocates. (2) We see the divide all over our nation. Social media is filled with hatred towards the unvaccinated. They are the despicable class of people, and are mocked even in death at the hands of covid-19. (3) if any other solution to covid-19 is brought up, it is shot down. Why would you encourage treatment when it will only dissuade people from the one true means of salvation, the vaccine? And (4) punishment is promised for the unvaccinated. You don’t want the “jab?” Fine, then you lose your right to enter public. Papers, please.
As we investigate the responses to covid-19, we see the religious response exemplified more and more. For example, studies have shown that for boys at 12-15, there is more risk from the vaccine than the virus. Small children have a greater death rate from the flu than they do from covid. Yet, our government officials have bought enough vaccinations for all of our children and are quickly pushing to require covid vaccination to attend public schools. [A side note here: get your kids out of public schools, they are training grounds for secularism.] This response makes no sense, why would we require a vaccine that could potentially cause greater harm to our children? It is because vaccination is the one means of salvation.
Another proof is that treatments for covid are largely ignored or shunned. You cannot bring up treatment medicines, such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin without ridicule. Both of these drugs have been tested with mixed results, meaning we don’t yet know for certain if they help or not. But, if covid-19 is as bad as we are being told, why not allow unconventional drugs to be tested? That is what we are doing with the vaccine, and at a massive scale. Ivermectin has been denounced as a horse dewormer, even though it has been used on humans for longer than animals. There are many drugs that are used across species, but at different dosages. Yet, suggesting that doctors look into this treatment has been shot down by many. It is even looked down upon to suggest people eat right, exercise, and take vitamins. If you do these things, your body will be better able to protect itself when you get sick. But, once again, if you tell people to do these things, they might think they don’t need the salvation of the vaccine. So, it is anathema.
The greatest sign that this response is religious in nature is the declaration made at the Covid Summit in Rome earlier this year. Doctors gathered in September to look at the response to Covid in order to pool thoughts and resources to improve our response. Their declaration follows:
We the physicians of the world, united and loyal to the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing the profession of medicine as we know it is at a crossroad, are compelled to declare the following;
WHEREAS, it is our utmost responsibility and duty to uphold and restore the dignity, integrity, art and science of medicine;
WHEREAS, there is an unprecedented assault on our ability to care for our patients;
WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective;
WHEREAS, physicians and other health care providers working on the front lines, utilizing their knowledge of epidemiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, are often first to identify new, potentially life saving treatments;
WHEREAS, physicians are increasingly being discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas about new and emerging diseases, not only endangering the essence of the medical profession, but more importantly, more tragically, the lives of our patients;
WHEREAS, thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, rendering the vast majority of healthcare providers helpless to protect their patients in the face of disease. Physicians are now advising their patients to simply go home (allowing the virus to replicate) and return when their disease worsens, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat;
WHEREAS, this is not medicine. This is not care. These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS:
RESOLVED, that the physician-patient relationship must be restored. The very heart of medicine is this relationship, which allows physicians to best understand their patients and their illnesses, to formulate treatments that give the best chance for success, while the patient is an active participant in their care.
RESOLVED, that the political intrusion into the practice of medicine and the physician/patient relationship must end. Physicians, and all health care providers, must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action, including possible loss of licensure and hospital privileges, loss of insurance contracts and interference from government entities and organizations – which further prevent us from caring for patients in need. More than ever, the right and ability to exchange objective scientific findings, which further our understanding of disease, must be protected.
RESOLVED, that physicians must defend their right to prescribe treatment, observing the tenet FIRST, DO NO HARM. Physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments. These restrictions continue to cause unnecessary sickness and death. The rights of patients, after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option, must be restored to receive those treatments.
RESOLVED, that we invite physicians of the world and all health care providers to join us in this noble cause as we endeavor to restore trust, integrity and professionalism to the practice of medicine.
RESOLVED, that we invite the scientists of the world, who are skilled in biomedical research and uphold the highest ethical and moral standards, to insist on their ability to conduct and publish objective, empirical research without fear of reprisal upon their careers, reputations and livelihoods.
RESOLVED, that we invite patients, who believe in the importance of the physician-patient relationship and the ability to be active participants in their care, to demand access to science-based medical care.
View the declaration.
As you can see, this response has hindered the work of doctors. Our governments have been responding in a way that constitutes crimes against humanity! And they did this with glowing approval from many of their citizens. The response and coverage of covid-19 has been an effective campaign to promote this new secular religious movement. Gallup did a poll that looked at the population’s understanding of vaccine efficacy. There are several interesting findings from this study, which can be read in full here. One finding is that 41% of democrats, 22% of republicans, and 26% of independents think that 50% or more of unvaccinated people go to the hospital. The real number is less than 1%. This understanding is skewed due to how this topic has been covered. No wonder people are lining up for the vaccine and suggesting mass vaccination. They think we are in the times of the black plague! That could not be farther from the truth.
This is not to say that covid is not an issue. By now, most, if not all of us, know of people who have died or been hospitalized due to covid-19. It is a deadly virus that has killed and harmed many. However, we have answered this issue out of proportion and caused further harm upon the population with mandate after mandate. Christians that do not want to get involved in this religious fervor are in their right to request a religious exemption. Why would we want to participate in this religious right of passage? So, some Christians will look at this response, the lack of long term data, the lies and half truths of the media, and want no part of this. Other Christians will look at the deaths and hospitalizations that have occurred to the people around them and want the vaccine. Both should do so according to their conscience, and not expect the other to conform to their decision.
Conclusion
The church needs to step up and speak boldly on this topic. For too long we have assumed politics to be a neutral ground where the Christian does not belong. It is because of our absence that the public realm has become so deeply secular. People must worship something, and they will worship the state if there is no other god present. It is time for us to preach God’s word in its fullness. Salvation is not only meant to give us a ticket to heaven, it is also meant to affect our entire lives. We are saved to walk in obedience to Christ in all of our life. Just as God is the head of the state, He is also the head of the church and of each individual. We need to honor Him as God, and we need to desire his precepts on this earth. It is time we call our government to repent and believe in the gospel. It is time we apply a biblical understanding of the government so we can end our slip into tyranny. When we are set free in Christ, we are free indeed. Outside of Christ, there is no freedom, and that includes the public realm.