Submission to Christ Our King
by Rev. Doug Barnes and Mark Van Der Molen
Submission is hard – but submission to Christ is paramount. And throughout history, Christ has raised up magistrates who lead the church in resisting the tyranny that would prevent His proper worship. That’s the soil in which America is firmly rooted.
In two recent issues of Christian Renewal, Rev. Brian Lee addressed recent restrictions on the worship of Christ’s church. He focused on the decision of Grace Community Church (GCC) in California – a large congregation led by the well-known Rev. John MacArthur – to resume indoor, in-person worship despite an order by the California governor forbidding such worship.
Rev. Lee used these events to flesh out his view that the church is called to radical submission to the authorities. While acknowledging that there are times when Christians must disobey the state’s edicts – notably, when the state forbids the preaching of the gospel – our brother contends that Romans 13 and other passages should have led GCC to submit to the state’s edicts. Admitting that the state did not treat the church equitably in the eyes of the law, Rev. Lee nonetheless argues that GCC was bound by Scripture to find alternative ways to worship, both in order to honor the governor’s commands and to maintain its witness to our society.
Rev. Lee takes American Christians to task by claiming that “America’s original sin is rebellion.” From the time of our founding onward, he claims, we have been prone to rebel against authority. “Our freedoms are sacred to us … and we don’t question the regular need to rebel.”
We believe that Rev. Lee has misdiagnosed the situation. This column is our response.
Today, we intend to consider the teaching of Scripture and our Confession concerning both the submission we owe to the magistrate and the magistrate’s duty in ruling. Next time, we hope to look at the legal footing of Christians in America when faced with a governmental ruling that would curtail the worship of the church.
Scripture Limits the Magistrate’s Authority
Rev. Lee argues that there is no exception to the command of submission found in Romans 13. Yet, the text itself places limitations on the role of the magistrate.
Rom. 13:4 declares of the magistrate: “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
Question: what is a “wrongdoer”? Who defines that? The answer is clear: God does. He sets the standards of good and bad, right and wrong; and magistrates who transgress His commandments embrace illicit tyranny.
We see the same thing in 1 Peter 2, where we’re called to “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 evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Pet. 2:13-14). Note, again, the need to define “evil” and “good.” Only by God’s Word can we truly understand those terms. And while the unbeliever may accurately grasp those concepts, through the gift of conscience (Rom. 2:14-15), God condemns rulers who call evil good and declare good to be evil as unjust tyrants who are ripe to be judged (see Psalm 82; Isa. 5:20; Mal. 2:17).
In fact, Psalm 2 explicitly calls the kings of the nations to submit themselves to the true King, who defines the standards by which they are to judge.
So what does that mean for our submission? It means we need to submit unless doing so violates God’s commands.
That’s why Acts 5 shows the disciples refusing the command of the Sanhedrin to stop teaching in Christ’s name. The command was illicit; an act of tyranny. Therefore they were constrained to not obey. Likewise in Daniel 6: when the magistrates of Persia convinced the king to prohibit prayer to anyone but him, Daniel recognized this as an unjust law contrary to God’s commands. Therefore he openly disregarded it – recognizing, as he did so, that his disobedience would cost him dearly.
It’s worth noting that Daniel could have disobeyed the king’s command quietly. He could have prayed in a hidden part of his house, silently, and no man would have been the wiser. Rev. Lee seems to suggest in his recent columns that this would have been the appropriate course of action. (See Part II of his column, in which Rev. Lee suggested that GCC should have conducted worship “outdoors, in smaller home groups, or other permitted methods.”) Instead, Daniel prayed openly, where his resistance to tyranny could not be ignored.
Our forefathers during the Afscheiding of 1834 also endured tyranny. The Afscheiding was a mini-Reformation in the Netherlands, when the unfaithfulness of the state Reformed church prompted the formation of “unsanctioned” Reformed congregations. This did not sit well with the government, which invoked a Napoleonic-era law forbidding the gathering of more than 20 persons without governmental authorization. Instead of acquiescing, our forefathers appealed the government’s ruling – and refused to cease meeting for worship. They recognized that God’s command for His people to gather in worship superseded the state’s command. Contrary to the government’s command, they met for worship.
The government is owed submission; but God alone is to be feared absolutely (1 Pet. 2:17).
In fact, our Confession of Faith confirms this view of the government and its responsibilities.
The Reformed Confession & Reformed Resistance Theory
Article 36 of our Belgic Confession states:
“And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God’s law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship. They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them. They should do it in order that the Word of God may have free course, the kingdom of Jesus Christ may make progress, and every anti-Christian power may be resisted.”
Simply stated, we confess that government must remove obstacles to worship. Magistrates are subject to God’s law and may only operate within the sphere entrusted to them. The magistrate shall protect the gathering around the worship of God (circa sacra), but it has no authority to interfere with the elements of worship (in sacra). The circumstances and elements of worship are entrusted to the church, not the state.
In other words, the magistrate has no authority to issue edicts that interfere with the church’s obedience to God in assembling for worship, nor can the state forbid particular elements of worship set forth by God.
So may Christians resist government edicts that transgress God’s law in placing obstacles to worship and the preaching of the gospel?
The Reformed have a long history of teaching and practicing resistance to such rebellious rulers. John Knox famously stated, “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God!” John Calvin recognized the limits of our submission to magistrates, writing: “So let us faithfully pay to princes the tributes which are due them, let us be ready to give them all civil obedience; but if, being not content with their degree, they go about to pluck out of our hands the fear and worship of God, there is no cause why any should say that we despise them because we make more account of the power and majesty of God” (Commentary on Acts 17:7; cf. Commentary on Jeremiah 1:9).
One of the early treatises on reformed resistance theory was Theodore Beza’s On the Right of Magistrates, in which Beza wrote:
“Inasmuch as only the will of almighty God is the eternal and immutable Rule of all Justice, we declare that must be unconditionally obeyed. As regards, however, the obedience due to Princes, they too would doubtless have to be obeyed always and unconditionally if they ruled constantly in accordance with the utterance of God. Since however theirs is often the contrary case, such obedience must be made subject to the following condition, namely, that they command nothing impious, nothing unjust. Impious or sinful I call those which God forbids in the First Table of His Law, or which forbids those which God there commands.”
Beza went on to develop what is known as the “lesser magistrate” doctrine, which recognized that subordinate magistrates have the duty to intervene on behalf of citizens who are the objects of the higher magistrate’s unjust rule. Beza said that such lesser magistrates “are certainly bound, even by means of armed force if they can, to protect against manifest tyranny the safety of those who have been entrusted to their care.”
An example of this intervention by lesser magistrates recently unfolded in Indiana. The governor sought to impose a mask mandate accompanied by fines and jail time for violators. A number of county sheriffs reviewed the proposed mandate and publicly declared they would not enforce such an unconstitutional mandate, since the governor had no authority to create new criminal law. The Indiana Attorney General issued a legal opinion that the mandate would be unconstitutional. In response to this pushback, the governor backed down and stripped his revised mandate of any such penalties.
Nonetheless, had the governor proceeded to issue the unconstitutional mandate with penalties, it would have been entirely justified for citizens to disregard the mandate, knowing they had the sanction and protection of the lesser magistrates.
John MacArthur made clear that his church is assembling for worship in obedience to Christ as Head of the Church.
His church initially complied with the state regulations, given the uncertainty over this new virus. The church patiently observed the low Covid numbers unfold over the months, even as regulations became more onerous. More telling, the church witnessed the disparate harsher treatment the state applied to churches with its so-called health regulations. Added regulations even forbade singing, partaking of communion, or passing the offering plate – naked interference with things in sacra. Only then did Grace Community reasonably conclude that the state’s regulations were an unjustified transgression of God’s law and intrusion into the sphere of the church.
Grace Community rightly sought relief through “lesser magistrates” in the courts, which so far have protected the church against punitive action. Local law enforcement officials were consulted, who have assured church leaders that they have no plans to enforce other threatened punitive actions such as making arrests or forcibly barring entry to the church building.
An Initial Conclusion
What’s the take-away from all of this? Two points.
Above all, we must recognize that Christians are called to a multi-level submission. To God we must submit absolutely, acknowledging Scripture as the final word that defines good and bad, right and wrong. To God we must ever submit.
The magistrate, however, is owed submission as a servant of God. In submitting to the government, we submit to God. However, when the government commands that which is contrary to God’s commands – particularly in the realm of God’s worship – we are called to resist such tyranny.
That leads to the second major point: God doesn’t raise up just one magistrate. The so-called “lesser” magistrate also is “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4). When a greater magistrate – a president; a governor – institutes tyranny among a people, lesser magistrates must be urged to rise up and lead the people in opposing that unjust rule.
That’s what happened in the American War for Independence. Today, it’s happening all across our nation, as tyrannical governors are being opposed by lesser magistrates who refuse to enforce tyrannical executive orders against the church.
In the next issue we will consider the legal standing of American Christians who are faced with government rulings that would curtail the worship of God.
Rev. Doug Barnes serves as pastor of Grace United Reformed Church in Alto, MI. Mr. Mark Van Der Molen is an attorney and member of Immanuel United Reformed Church in DeMotte, IN.
by Rev. Doug Barnes and Mark Van Der Molen
Submission is hard – but submission to Christ is paramount. And throughout history, Christ has raised up magistrates who lead the church in resisting the tyranny that would prevent His proper worship. That’s the soil in which America is firmly rooted.
In two recent issues of Christian Renewal, Rev. Brian Lee addressed recent restrictions on the worship of Christ’s church. He focused on the decision of Grace Community Church (GCC) in California – a large congregation led by the well-known Rev. John MacArthur – to resume indoor, in-person worship despite an order by the California governor forbidding such worship.
Rev. Lee used these events to flesh out his view that the church is called to radical submission to the authorities. While acknowledging that there are times when Christians must disobey the state’s edicts – notably, when the state forbids the preaching of the gospel – our brother contends that Romans 13 and other passages should have led GCC to submit to the state’s edicts. Admitting that the state did not treat the church equitably in the eyes of the law, Rev. Lee nonetheless argues that GCC was bound by Scripture to find alternative ways to worship, both in order to honor the governor’s commands and to maintain its witness to our society.
Rev. Lee takes American Christians to task by claiming that “America’s original sin is rebellion.” From the time of our founding onward, he claims, we have been prone to rebel against authority. “Our freedoms are sacred to us … and we don’t question the regular need to rebel.”
We believe that Rev. Lee has misdiagnosed the situation. This column is our response.
Today, we intend to consider the teaching of Scripture and our Confession concerning both the submission we owe to the magistrate and the magistrate’s duty in ruling. Next time, we hope to look at the legal footing of Christians in America when faced with a governmental ruling that would curtail the worship of the church.
Scripture Limits the Magistrate’s Authority
Rev. Lee argues that there is no exception to the command of submission found in Romans 13. Yet, the text itself places limitations on the role of the magistrate.
Rom. 13:4 declares of the magistrate: “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
Question: what is a “wrongdoer”? Who defines that? The answer is clear: God does. He sets the standards of good and bad, right and wrong; and magistrates who transgress His commandments embrace illicit tyranny.
We see the same thing in 1 Peter 2, where we’re called to “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 evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Pet. 2:13-14). Note, again, the need to define “evil” and “good.” Only by God’s Word can we truly understand those terms. And while the unbeliever may accurately grasp those concepts, through the gift of conscience (Rom. 2:14-15), God condemns rulers who call evil good and declare good to be evil as unjust tyrants who are ripe to be judged (see Psalm 82; Isa. 5:20; Mal. 2:17).
In fact, Psalm 2 explicitly calls the kings of the nations to submit themselves to the true King, who defines the standards by which they are to judge.
So what does that mean for our submission? It means we need to submit unless doing so violates God’s commands.
That’s why Acts 5 shows the disciples refusing the command of the Sanhedrin to stop teaching in Christ’s name. The command was illicit; an act of tyranny. Therefore they were constrained to not obey. Likewise in Daniel 6: when the magistrates of Persia convinced the king to prohibit prayer to anyone but him, Daniel recognized this as an unjust law contrary to God’s commands. Therefore he openly disregarded it – recognizing, as he did so, that his disobedience would cost him dearly.
It’s worth noting that Daniel could have disobeyed the king’s command quietly. He could have prayed in a hidden part of his house, silently, and no man would have been the wiser. Rev. Lee seems to suggest in his recent columns that this would have been the appropriate course of action. (See Part II of his column, in which Rev. Lee suggested that GCC should have conducted worship “outdoors, in smaller home groups, or other permitted methods.”) Instead, Daniel prayed openly, where his resistance to tyranny could not be ignored.
Our forefathers during the Afscheiding of 1834 also endured tyranny. The Afscheiding was a mini-Reformation in the Netherlands, when the unfaithfulness of the state Reformed church prompted the formation of “unsanctioned” Reformed congregations. This did not sit well with the government, which invoked a Napoleonic-era law forbidding the gathering of more than 20 persons without governmental authorization. Instead of acquiescing, our forefathers appealed the government’s ruling – and refused to cease meeting for worship. They recognized that God’s command for His people to gather in worship superseded the state’s command. Contrary to the government’s command, they met for worship.
The government is owed submission; but God alone is to be feared absolutely (1 Pet. 2:17).
In fact, our Confession of Faith confirms this view of the government and its responsibilities.
The Reformed Confession & Reformed Resistance Theory
Article 36 of our Belgic Confession states:
“And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God’s law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship. They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them. They should do it in order that the Word of God may have free course, the kingdom of Jesus Christ may make progress, and every anti-Christian power may be resisted.”
Simply stated, we confess that government must remove obstacles to worship. Magistrates are subject to God’s law and may only operate within the sphere entrusted to them. The magistrate shall protect the gathering around the worship of God (circa sacra), but it has no authority to interfere with the elements of worship (in sacra). The circumstances and elements of worship are entrusted to the church, not the state.
In other words, the magistrate has no authority to issue edicts that interfere with the church’s obedience to God in assembling for worship, nor can the state forbid particular elements of worship set forth by God.
So may Christians resist government edicts that transgress God’s law in placing obstacles to worship and the preaching of the gospel?
The Reformed have a long history of teaching and practicing resistance to such rebellious rulers. John Knox famously stated, “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God!” John Calvin recognized the limits of our submission to magistrates, writing: “So let us faithfully pay to princes the tributes which are due them, let us be ready to give them all civil obedience; but if, being not content with their degree, they go about to pluck out of our hands the fear and worship of God, there is no cause why any should say that we despise them because we make more account of the power and majesty of God” (Commentary on Acts 17:7; cf. Commentary on Jeremiah 1:9).
One of the early treatises on reformed resistance theory was Theodore Beza’s On the Right of Magistrates, in which Beza wrote:
“Inasmuch as only the will of almighty God is the eternal and immutable Rule of all Justice, we declare that must be unconditionally obeyed. As regards, however, the obedience due to Princes, they too would doubtless have to be obeyed always and unconditionally if they ruled constantly in accordance with the utterance of God. Since however theirs is often the contrary case, such obedience must be made subject to the following condition, namely, that they command nothing impious, nothing unjust. Impious or sinful I call those which God forbids in the First Table of His Law, or which forbids those which God there commands.”
Beza went on to develop what is known as the “lesser magistrate” doctrine, which recognized that subordinate magistrates have the duty to intervene on behalf of citizens who are the objects of the higher magistrate’s unjust rule. Beza said that such lesser magistrates “are certainly bound, even by means of armed force if they can, to protect against manifest tyranny the safety of those who have been entrusted to their care.”
An example of this intervention by lesser magistrates recently unfolded in Indiana. The governor sought to impose a mask mandate accompanied by fines and jail time for violators. A number of county sheriffs reviewed the proposed mandate and publicly declared they would not enforce such an unconstitutional mandate, since the governor had no authority to create new criminal law. The Indiana Attorney General issued a legal opinion that the mandate would be unconstitutional. In response to this pushback, the governor backed down and stripped his revised mandate of any such penalties.
Nonetheless, had the governor proceeded to issue the unconstitutional mandate with penalties, it would have been entirely justified for citizens to disregard the mandate, knowing they had the sanction and protection of the lesser magistrates.
John MacArthur made clear that his church is assembling for worship in obedience to Christ as Head of the Church.
His church initially complied with the state regulations, given the uncertainty over this new virus. The church patiently observed the low Covid numbers unfold over the months, even as regulations became more onerous. More telling, the church witnessed the disparate harsher treatment the state applied to churches with its so-called health regulations. Added regulations even forbade singing, partaking of communion, or passing the offering plate – naked interference with things in sacra. Only then did Grace Community reasonably conclude that the state’s regulations were an unjustified transgression of God’s law and intrusion into the sphere of the church.
Grace Community rightly sought relief through “lesser magistrates” in the courts, which so far have protected the church against punitive action. Local law enforcement officials were consulted, who have assured church leaders that they have no plans to enforce other threatened punitive actions such as making arrests or forcibly barring entry to the church building.
An Initial Conclusion
What’s the take-away from all of this? Two points.
Above all, we must recognize that Christians are called to a multi-level submission. To God we must submit absolutely, acknowledging Scripture as the final word that defines good and bad, right and wrong. To God we must ever submit.
The magistrate, however, is owed submission as a servant of God. In submitting to the government, we submit to God. However, when the government commands that which is contrary to God’s commands – particularly in the realm of God’s worship – we are called to resist such tyranny.
That leads to the second major point: God doesn’t raise up just one magistrate. The so-called “lesser” magistrate also is “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4). When a greater magistrate – a president; a governor – institutes tyranny among a people, lesser magistrates must be urged to rise up and lead the people in opposing that unjust rule.
That’s what happened in the American War for Independence. Today, it’s happening all across our nation, as tyrannical governors are being opposed by lesser magistrates who refuse to enforce tyrannical executive orders against the church.
In the next issue we will consider the legal standing of American Christians who are faced with government rulings that would curtail the worship of God.
Rev. Doug Barnes serves as pastor of Grace United Reformed Church in Alto, MI. Mr. Mark Van Der Molen is an attorney and member of Immanuel United Reformed Church in DeMotte, IN.
|
|