Article 23: The Church’s Relation to Government and Society – being a holy nation within the whole nation
May 22, 2011
BMC- Romans 13:1-7 & I Peter 2:9-17
Introduction: Juggling
Well, given that we are all gathered here this morning, it seems that it was good that I prepared a sermon despite the council of some in our world that have been suggesting that there would be no need. Does anyone know what these are? {hold up juggling sticks}
These are juggling sticks. You use the two smaller sticks to keep the big black stick up in the air. Those who are more proficient in the art are also able to use only one hand and to do tricks of spectacular spins and high tosses. And I’m sure many of you are asking yourselves right now if I am about to begin juggling with these sticks this morning.
Unfortunately, while I would love to do that for you and while I believe that juggling for the next 20 minutes while I deliver my sermon would serve as a good illustration of this morning’s topic of Article 23: The Church’s Relation to the Government and Society, I am not able to do that. I am not able to juggle with these sticks, so you will have to use your imaginations this morning.
But I think that this still serves as a good illustration for us this morning as we consider how we as Christians relate to our government and our society. I say this for two reasons. First, I think that this is often a bit of a juggling act for us as we try to live out being in the world but not of the world. Inside these four walls, it tends to be pretty easy for us to declare our faith and we are usually in good agreement on how to live out most of the principles of our faith. Yet when we leave this building and live the other 6 days of our lives amid the various demands and perspectives of our world, it can be a challenge to juggle our faith with the expectations of the society around us without dropping the stick per se.
The second reason that I think that this serves as a good illustration for us this morning is because it is an example of something that I am have not learned how to do proficiently. I have the sticks and I have played with them trying to learn how to use them, but I don’t have it down yet and I honestly haven’t even tried for quite awhile. I feel much the same way about my understanding and practice of how the church should relate to government and society. I understand some basic principles, but I am still figuring it out and learning how to apply them. I am still working at how to juggle these realities and that is the focus of what I want to share with you this morning.
But first a little aside. There is an irony to me mentioning these juggling sticks here this morning. While I was a youth pastor at Grace Mennonite, I participated in the Ohio Conference youth pastor gatherings that happened quarterly. At one of those meetings, Todd Martin, who was also a youth pastor at the time, did the morning devotional. In that, he demonstrated his juggling prowess with his own set of sticks and reflected upon how our lives, faith, and ministry are often like that as well. Then he gave each of us some basic instructions, our own sticks, and invited us to try juggling ourselves for a bit. The irony of it all is that the youth pastor gathering took place 5 or 6 years ago on Bethel’s front lawn. It was this time of year and Suzy hosted the gathering here, so I actually received these sticks from my very first trip to Bethel before any of us had even a glimmer of the possibility that I would be called here to pastor.
Varied Opinions
As I said though, the application of this article feels like a juggling act that I am still learning. I think that there are two primary reasons for that. First even among faithful Mennonites, there is significant variance in opinion about how best to apply these understandings. Second, it seems to me that scripture and the article itself set us up for a very difficult "both/and" juggling act.
Historically, Anabaptist-Mennonites have tended to have a "you leave us alone/we'll leave you alone," isolationist approach to government. Of course, in the beginning, the government worked with the state church to persecute, torture, and kill the Anabaptists. This required an isolationist approach to government simply to survive. The only discussions with government happened with the threat of death looming.
Later there were several instances in which governments would provide land to Anabaptists that no one else wanted and was thus unproductive in exchange for the "freedom" to live life the way they wanted and to be left alone. For a time this served as a "win-win" situation, but invariably this broke down at some point for one reason or another and was also counter to the nurture of an Anabaptist evangelistic approach to faith.
Today, we carry that heritage with us and yet we find ourselves in the midst of a very different system of government in the United States. Here we are not under the protection of a dictator who has sole authority but of a democracy, a system of government that inherently (when functioning in a healthy way) invites and even expects us to participate. And yet with that comes the inherent dangers of any government:
- Do we put our ultimate trust in God or government for our protection and provision?
- Do we put our ultimate allegiance in God or government when they call us to opposing realities?
- Do we use our resources of time and money to further the reign of God or the reign of our government?
This plays out in many different ways and often times each community of Mennonites and sometimes even each Mennonite must choose for him, her, or their selves. For instance, should we vote? Some do and some don't. Do we pay the portion of our taxes that supports the military? Some do and some don't. Do we serve in political offices? Some do and some don't. Do we lobby the government about policy decisions? Some do and some don't.
The variance in opinion is extensive enough that our denominational delegate assembly at Charlotte 2005 even included a discussion between John D. Roth and J. Daryl Byler about Speaking to Government and whether we should or shouldn't. This was followed by delegate discussion around tables and copies of Article 23 were provided.
Byler shared that we should witness to government by being the city on the hill that demonstrates the way of Christ. He also suggested that we should be ambassadors for Christ who speak to governments and call them to act justly. He suggested that speaking to government is biblical, citing a number of Old Testament examples. It is also falls in line with the fact that Jesus is Lord and with portions of our Anabaptist history that have included speaking to government. And Byler suggested that our global brothers and sisters are asking us to speak on their behalves as Mordecai called on Esther for such a time as this.
Roth, while not disputing Byler’s ideas, suggested a different approach. Roth noted the ways in which politics can divide the church especially across the cultural red and blue lines. He also noted that faithful Christians are expecting too much from the government in addressing difficulties and not expecting enough out of the church. He then suggested that Mennonites should take a 5 year sabbatical from participation in any political party.
While not in opposition to one another, these two men each shared their personal perspectives. They both claimed an Anabaptist foundation and yet their recommendations would lead us in different directions in some instances.
Romans
Given all this and the text of our article, it seems to me that we are given a "both/and" juggling act that requires ongoing discernment. As our confession states on one hand, "the church is the spiritual, social, and political body that gives its allegiance to God alone." On the other hand, "governing authorities of the world have been instituted by God for maintaining order in societies" and "as Christians we are to respect those in authority." This juggling act is reinforced by scriptural teaching as well.
Romans 13:1-7 tells us that we should be subject to our governing authorities because they are established by God and as a matter of conscience. We are to give taxes, revenue, respect and honor. In mainstream Christianity, this is often used as a blanket proof text to say that the government is always right and that we should do whatever the government says which Byler rejected.
Yet if it is a matter of conscience as Romans 13 suggests, we may sometimes be conflicted about carrying out all that the government demands. This struggle comes into greater focus when we look at the context for these verses and realize that they follow immediately after Romans 12:17-21. Here Paul tells us not to repay evil for evil, to live at peace with everyone and not to take revenge. When the government calls us to act counter to these instructions, we are clearly faced with a "matter of conscience" and forced to choose whom we ultimately follow.
I Peter
Likewise I Peter 2:9-17 tells us that we should submit ourselves to every human authority including the emperor and governors. In fact, we are to honor the emperor. And yet we also see within this verse that we are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, and holy nation. We are God's special possession and we are to live in such a way that we witness to the pagans and lead them to glorify God.
Moreover, if we would continue reading, we would come to verse 21 which tells us that we should follow in Jesus' footsteps. We should follow the example of Jesus, an example that lived within the bounds of his society, not waging war against it and yet challenged the ruling authorities in their oppressive behaviors.
And ultimately while we are to honor the emperor, Peter tells us that we are to fear God. Though we are to give proper honor or respect to those in authority, our fear or our ultimate allegiance we give to God, the one who is over all authorities and the final judge.
So What?
Which may leave us asking, “So what?” If all of this is true, where does this leave us? Well first from all of this, it is clear that we are not to be anarchists. From early Anabaptist history, we know of the Munsterites and their attempt to create their own kingdom of heaven on earth. That did not end well and it is not an example of what we are called to. We are not called to create our own separate government or to overthrow the present one. As Jeremiah instructed the Israelites in chapter 29, we should seek the peace of the city or village in which God has placed us.
And yet, it seems that there are limits to what we should do in support of the government. When there is a matter of conscience in which the government is calling us to act against the example of our Lord, Jesus Christ; we must obey God rather than men as the book of Acts reminds us in 5:29. We must be true to our faith first and to our government second.
But when we do choose to speak to government on any given area, I would suggest that we should first be sure that we are living out what we intend to call the government to. We should be modeling it in our own lives and communities. In this way, we put our dependence upon God above that of the government and we strengthen the significance of our words through our witness.
We also should share our perspective without trying to force it on anyone. Just as we do not force Jesus on people when we evangelize, we should not force our faith perspectives on politics. We should share and we should invite, but we should not force. As our baptism small group discussed on Wednesday night, faith’s affects on life are a matter of transformation more than they are a matter of law or correct thought. People will follow God’s rules when their hearts have been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit; until then regardless of what laws are in place, they will resist God’s principles.
Conclusion
For all of this "give and take," for all of the juggling involved, in the end perhaps the church’s relation to government and society comes down to the beginning of the article: "We believe that the church is God's 'holy nation,' called to give full allegiance to Christ its head and to witness to all nations about God's saving love." While the claims of this article become very contextual and require ongoing personal and congregational discernment for its application, we are called to being a holy nation within the whole nation. May God lead us in living this out faithfully.
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment