Select here for a pdf version.
Luke 10:38-42; Romans 13:10; 1 Peter 2:13-17
A Sermon for the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost
The long season of Pentecost is a good time to consider the practical consequences of our Christian faith. How does it work? The Gospel is not just a head-trip but a message with down to earth consequences. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves, as the text last week from Luke said.
This week we have the account of Mary and Martha. It says something about priorities. It summarizes the whole of Luke 10, about the “alls”—love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.
Paul spells out what this means in Romans 13:10 where he says “Love your neighbor as yourself means: “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Our job, in practical terms, is to ask: What does harm?
Last week we spoke of the concern for private property. It protects against the harm of laziness and stealing. Today let’s consider the question of government. What do we as Christians say about that?
When we look at the Biblical record, there’s all sorts of “governments” in there. The people of Israel, after they left Egypt, had judges, like tribal chieftains. After about 400 years, they said they wanted a king. The Lord gave them a king and they had kings. Several of them, like Solomon and David, became like emperors. That form of “government” was familiar to them from the ancient world. That was the kind of government that existed at the time. There was Nebuchadnezzar, who was a tyrant, and yet called “the servant of God.” There was Cyrus who of all things was called “the Messiah,” a technical term we know as “Christ” from the New Testament.
Then in the New Testament there is the Roman Empire. 1 Peter 2:13-17 speaks to the matter of the Christian and government. It says:
“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is the Lord’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”
In a similar way, there is a famous text in Romans 13:1-7 where it says: “The Lord instituted the state so pay your taxes and follow the law.”
It’s curious that in Romans 13 it says the state is instituted by God, but in Revelation 13 it says the state is demonic. We have here in the Bible two entirely different ways of looking at it.
Nor is this matter solved by us in Acts 5:29 where the apostles are brought before the authorities, the Jews, and it says: “We shall obey God rather than men,” because we also have that text in Mattew 22:21 where it describes Jesus as being tested by the Pharisees, and he takes a coin, shows it to them, and says: “Who is on the coin?” And they answer: “Caesar.” Remember how strongly the Jews felt about images and idols. And then Jesus says to them: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
In Acts 2 it says of the Christians in Jerusalem: “They had all thing in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.” It goes on in chapter 4:32: “They had everything in common.” But this early Christian communism didn’t work. Like all utopianism it doesn’t account for human nature, sin, sloth, and greed. It didn’t last and disappears from the record.
The Bible doesn’t describe our American system and the separation of church and state, but it does describe something about the state as that which has a certain role for us. However, it doesn’t come easily from some kind of direct use of the Bible.
But we see in the Judeo-Christian West and in the history of the Church an evolving sense of human dignity.
Think of the Magna Carta, signed in June 1215. It limited the King’s power and established the rule of law. The Magna Carta marks the beginning of modern Western thinking about more democratic forms of government over against others.
Remember, too, the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) in which Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other and ultimately 40% of the people of Central Europe died. People said: “A plague on both your houses. This doesn’t work. We have to have a different way of operating.” And that’s where our modern idea of tolerance comes from. Not from a marvelous faith in God, but from a disgust over the way churches on both sides operated.
When we look back on the founding of our own country, we remember that colonial life was experimental. As one historian said: “The Colonies were disproving grounds for utopians.” Puritan New England could not sustain itself. It lost most of its religious zeal by the end of the 17th century. Quaker Philadelphia was no longer dominated by the Quakers by the time of the American Revolution. Maryland was established to be a refuge for Catholics but was quickly dominated by Protestants.
What was learned, however, was the habit of self-rule. This habit, grounded in English law and custom, became a part of the American way of life and government.
A woman asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government was being established. He answered: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
And as Winston Churchill famously said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.”
What do we say today about government? There are two basic concerns we keep in mind.
The first one is: We are to be involved. We cannot stand back and say: “Politics is dirty; I am not going to be involved in that.” Nor can duck our responsibility as citizens by not voting. One has to be involved.
And that means being informed, not simplistic, but asking: What are the issues? What are the consequences of this policy or that? Who is hurt by this and what type of people get hurt by this?
There is also the problem of demonizing the opposition. That again is a basic error in thinking I’m pure and the other side is not. I’m right, and the other side is evil. We have to ask ourselves what is the other point of view about? This was put famously by Oliver Cromwell in 1650, writing to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in an effort to persuade them not to align with King Charles II. He wrote: “I beseech you, brothers, in the bowels of Christ, consider the possibility that you might be wrong.”
In other words: “I beg you, with all the love and mercy of Christ, consider that you might be mistaken.”
That plea, however, does not mean there is a moral equivalence between sides in a conflict. What it does mean is that we are to think critically, have a concern for facts, and an eye for consequences.
We remember, too, that there is a big difference between questions of ethics and questions of doctrine. There a difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the question of smoking tobacco. These questions are not decided in the same way.
That brings us to the second great consideration, which is that we are called upon to be servants as it says in this passage 1 Peter 2:16: “Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God.”
Living as “servants of God” means having a concern for what’s true in any given situation and an awareness of sin and evil so that we, following Paul in Romans 13:10, can minimize harm.
A useful example is Alcoholics Anonymous. If you ever go to those sessions where alcoholics discuss their problems, one of the things that is striking is how they speak the truth to each other. One person will say: “I did this and that,” and the others might very well say: “You’re lying to yourself; you’re lying to us. We know better.”
This illustrates what is meant by the whole matter of using “reason” and asking about “harm.” So much of what we call “reasoning” is just “rationalizing.” It’s a way of rationalizing what we want: “I want what I want.”
When we talk about reason, about doing no harm, it means we have a concern for the individual and also for stability of the society, always remembering we might be wrong.
As Christians we keep in mind that for 1500 years the Church of Christ supported slavery and supported it even with quotes from the Bible. Now we look back on that record in shame.
That should give us a warning about all of our thinking in the area of ethics. Again, that doesn’t mean we sink into moral equivalence. It does mean that we can’t put questions of ethics and government at the same level as the understanding of salvation, the Trinity, and God himself.
What does that mean finally? It means that we don’t live by doing good works. We live by forgiveness.
That is to say: It is because of what Christ has done through the cross that we are saved; it has nothing to do with our works or feelings. It is because of what he has done on the cross that is what is essential and decisive.
And we then, because that gives us freedom, are called upon to live for others because we don’t have to worry about salvation anymore. That’s the bottom line. We live by forgiveness and not by our own works. At the same time, we are called upon, because we are free, to be involved in this world.
Amen