Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

A true Christian is the best friend any government can have. This is not usually understood, especially by governments that have never grasped the meaning of true Christianity. Thus, Christians have often been persecuted as subversive to the government. In the Old Testament their own people governed the people of God, with God at the top. It was a theocracy. The Jew’s religion and his government were intertwined. Apparently God felt this was necessary to insure that the promise he made to Abraham would be fulfilled, for God saw no need for such an arrangement after Christ came. In the New Testament, a man’s government and his religion were separate. One could be a Christian while pagans ran his government.

The New Testament has very little to say about the role of government. God did not believe in big government. He separated the “things of Caesar” from the “things of God”

(Matt. 22:21). But he did provide for support of the government. There are certain things God’s word teaches about the role of government, to which we should give note.

The Government’s Rights And Responsibilities

1. God ordained government and citizens are subject to it (Rom. 13:1). If citizens resist the power of the government they are withstanding God and will be judged as to how they do in this matter (Rom. 13:2).

2. Government is to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. “For rulers are not a terror to the good work but to the evil. And wouldst thou have no fear of the power? Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise from the same” (Rom.13:6). The government is to protect its citizens by taking vengeance on lawbreakers (1 Pet. 2:14).

3. Government has a right to punish even to the point of death. “For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). This extends even to the right of capital punishment, “for he beareth not the sword in vain.” The sword was an instrument often used in capital punishment. Paul recognized that there were some crimes worthy of death and said if he had committed any of them he would be willing to die (Acts 25:11). “If any man shall kill with the sword, with the sword must he be killed” (Rev. 13:10). Jesus told Pilate that his (Pilate’s) power to release or crucify was given from above (John 19:10, 11).

4. Government has a right to collect taxes (Rom. 13:6, 7). Officers of the government must be paid since “they are ministers of God’s service.” Jesus taught that taxes should be paid (Matt. 22:15-22). Civil government would be needed even if everybody were Christians, for there are things to be done that are not the work of the church or the family.

The Christian’s Responsibilities

1. To obey the law. “Let every soul be in subjection to the higher power” (Rom. 13:1). No one is exempt.

2. To honor, fear, and pray for civil rulers. “Honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17).

Supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings are to be made for all men — “for kings that are in high places, that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life . . .” (1 Tim. 2:2). “Fear to whom fear . . .” (Rom. 13:7). “Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; . . .” (Rom. 13:7). Even if the man is dishonorable we should honor the office (Acts 26:25). One is not required to agree with the government before he agrees to pay taxes. Jesus paid taxes to the government that crucified him.

What The Christian Cannot Do

1. He cannot obey the government if it means disobeying God. Some governments have required idolatry (Dan.3:7). Others have outlawed Christianity (China, Iran, North Korea, etc.). “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

2. He cannot participate in an illegal overthrow of his government. We are sympathetic toward those under an oppressive regime, particularly those who were under the former Soviet Union. There are yet many areas of the world that do not enjoy the freedoms we take for granted. Let us be reminded that Christ and the apostles lived under one of the most oppressive governments in history. Never do we read of Jesus or the Twelve seeking to overthrow the government, though it certainly would have made it easier on them. They never led a march or demonstrated against the Sanhedrin or had a “sit in” or went on a “hunger strike” at the halls of Pontius Pilate. There is no record that they picketed or threw rocks and bottles at their leaders, or tried to “out shout” their leaders or tried to shut down the government, or take the law into their own hands.

The Jewish rulers had a figurehead government with limited authority under the Roman Empire. They were intolerant of Christians and ordered Peter and John to stop preaching. The apostles were beaten on that occasion. Talk about a good time to call for an overthrow of the government. But they did not.

The Romans were also harsh with Christ and his disciples. Paul and Silas were imprisoned and beaten (Acts 16). They didn’t call for an overthrow of the government but they did exercise their rights as Roman citizens (Acts 16:35f). A disciple has the right to use any lawful means at his disposal for protection. Paul did (Acts 22:25-29; 25:11, 12). In a free society citizens are given the right to vote and decide peaceably who their rulers will be. Though one may be outvoted, he has the lawful right to express his preference. However, the teaching of Christ and the apostles is clearly against overthrowing the government under which he is living, regardless of its corruption.

3. He cannot take personal vengeance on lawbreakers. “Avenge not yourselves beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). One of the ways God does this is through civil government. The civil ruler is “an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). The Christian cannot take the law into his own hands to render vengeance.

Conclusion

Because the Christian (out of honesty and conviction) honors, respects, and prays for his rulers, obeys the laws, pays taxes, and does not try to overthrow the government or take the law into his own hands, he is really the best friend any government can have. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov.14:34).

From time to time I hear folks say things like, “We need to major in the gospels and minor in the epistles.” The implication being that if someone stresses doctrinal issues they are missing the point of the New Testament. There is no doubt that we must have the right attitude when teaching God’s word, but that is not to say we are to minimize the necessity of doctrinal truth!

Unfortunately, sound gospel preachers are being charged with preaching a “church-centered” message rather than a “Christ-centered” message. The statement that those who stress baptism, church organization, and the work of the church have left Christ behind is false.

Christ commanded baptism, so when we preach baptism we are preaching the gospel of the Son of God (Mark 16:15, 16). As far as the organization and work of the local church is concerned, that is a subject that has to do with the authority of Christ and we must always stress that.

Paul Was a “Christ-Centered” Preacher

The apostle Paul preached Jesus and him crucified. His preaching did not emphasize lofty words of eloquence and human philosophy, but Jesus Christ was the attraction and him alone. “And I brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1, 2). The question we are concerning ourselves with in this article is, since we know Paul preached Christ and him crucified, what exactly did he teach?

Paul Talked About the Shame of Religious Division

Some have the idea that preaching Jesus means that you never condemn anything or anyone for sinful activity but such is simply not the case. Involved in encouraging unity is the condemnation of division. Paul condemned the division at Corinth, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment . . . Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:10, 13). There were some who viewed preachers as competitive teachers, thus creating factions in the church. Paul had not asked that they do this, nor had Cephas or Apollos, but divisive men were using their names to promote their own agendas.

Was Paul preaching Jesus when he condemned this? Absolutely! We cannot preach Christ without preaching his word. There is no doubt in my mind that were Paul living today he would denounce the religious division in the world and plead with believers to stand on the word of God without compromise.

Paul Preached Against Sin

F. Lagard Smith (professor at Pepperdine University) said, “For our generation, tolerance has become the highest virtue (tolerance, that is, for everything and everyone other than those who would insist on absolute moral standards) . . . if nothing is right and nothing wrong, then tolerance is the only option . . . So we have to tow the line on issues like abortion, gay rights, and radical feminism or we will be reported to the sensitivity police for being intolerant.” You see the stage has been set for divorce and remarriage, adulterous relationships, and homosexuality and since we are preaching Jesus we cannot condemn anyone; such ideas appear as a smoke-screen for sin. But Paul preached to the Corinthians about withdrawing fellowship from a disorderly brother (1 Cor. 5:1-13). In preaching church discipline, Paul was preaching the authority of Christ (1 Cor. 5:4, 5). To neglect such teaching would have been to neglect Jesus Christ.

Paul Preached On Marriage and Divorce (1 Cor. 7:1-40)

Many pulpits are silent on this, but Paul was not. Involved in preaching Jesus is preaching his law concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 states God’s will on the matter, “Let not the wife depart from her husband.” The word chorizo is the word for divorce in verse 11. If she departs she must either be reconciled, if possible, or remain celibate. What Christ taught in the gospels, Paul taught in the epistles (Matt. 19:1-9).

Paul Refuted False Doctrine (1 Cor. 15:12)

We cannot truly preach Jesus Christ and reject what his word teaches us. Someone says, “But this was something that determined whether or not people were saved!” This is true, but what false doctrine does not influence people’s salvation if it is a matter of faith? Including such issues as: the plan of salvation, the church, institutionalism, denominationalism, marriage, divorce, and remarriage . . . and we could go on and on.

The point I want us to all understand is though we refer over and over to the cross and though we say, “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,” the moment we leave scriptural authority behind is the moment we leave Christ behind!

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott spoke of President Clinton’s trashing of the office of the presidency. Said he, “I am disappointed in the way the highest office in the nation has been reduced in stature and diminished in credibility.”

“. . . Asked about Lott’s assertion that Clinton had diminished the credibility and stature of the office, (Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle) said: ‘I don’t believe so at all’” (USA Today [September 1, 1998], 5A).

Senator Daschle’s misguided defense of Clinton is about as frightening as the president’s brazen behavior. If Mr. Clinton has not “diminished” the credibility of the presidency, let Daschle tell us what forms of immorality would be required to do so. Specifically what would it take to reduce the stature of the oval office? Suppose Trent Lott or Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, had done what Clinton has done. Suppose they had been sexually involved with one of their secretaries, lied about it, and then had been exposed. Would Mr. Daschle say, when asked if they had “reduced in stature and diminished in credibility” their respective offices, “I don’t believe so at all”? Would he draw that conclusion? I don’t believe so at all. 

By Connie W. Adams

Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). But like Pilate, many cynics raise the question “What is truth?” It is thought to be so nebulous that anyone who thinks he knows the truth on anything is surely a bigot of the worst kind. (Surely if there are degrees of truth, there must be degrees of bigots as well.)

We are supposed to be tolerant of all forms of denominational error without being so overbearing as to compare that error with the truth of God’s word. Again Jesus said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). How dare anyone oppose a false position espoused by a well-known and much loved brother! The culprit here is not the one who teaches error to the destruction of souls but, alas, the one who is so intolerant as to point it out. Any such attempt is sure to elicit numerous articles or lectures punctuated by knowing glances and nudges from some in the audience, on the subject of love, kindness, and understanding.

In the realm of morals, it is recommended that we have “openness” and that we be “broad-minded.” After all, adultery has been around a long time and many good people have given in to it. Why be so judgmental? And who would not lie about it to save embarrassment, or pain to family and friends. In such a case with such mitigating circumstances surely a lie is understandable, even if it is told in court under oath.

In the church, such “tolerance” has led to the acceptance of people in adulterous marriages, or who practice social drinking, gambling, and indecent attire. Woe unto that elder or preacher who is so intolerant as to speak out against all such. Especially in language that can be understood.

On the political field, those who advocate the high road in moral behavior are scrutinized to find some skeleton in their closets. When all else fails they can be branded as “right-wing religious extremists.” Sometimes even their sanity may be called in question. Such is the intolerance of the tolerant. Liberalism of whatever sort is insufferably arrogant. It claims for itself privileges which it refuses to extend to its detractors.

While we all have the civil and academic right to espouse whatever view we might choose, that does not mean that the Lord honors such choices. We all still have the right to search the Scriptures to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11). Should it be clear from the Scriptures that a given doctrine or practice is not according to truth, that does not mean that those who have advocated them are the objects of hate. What it means is that their teaching or practice does not meet the divine standard.

It is fair to point that out without being accused of sowing hate or discord and of challenging the personal honor of those who advocate such views.

Those who have expanded Romans 14 to include more than Paul did and who have viewed it as elastic enough to cover all forms of doctrinal and moral error have unwittingly contributed to some of this intolerant tolerance. We have been told that there are five or six different views which brethren have taken on marriage, divorce and re- marriage (as if that subject belongs in Romans 14 at all). Surely we should not be so intolerant as to exclude those honest and sincere brethren who have differed on this. That subject is not addressed in Romans 14 but it is dealt with in other passages. Is it intolerant to insist that we faithfully adhere to what those passages say?

In American society at large, those who hold to the Bible as a standard of morals are variously identified as “Biblical fundamentalists,” “literalists,” “right-wing extremists,” or simply “nuts.” In entertainment they are portrayed in the most uncomplimentary light. In the news media they are misrepresented and regarded as unworthy of serious consideration. In education they have been sidelined and excluded from the process. We will have to exercise care to be sure that the same intolerant tolerance does not surface among us when there are doctrinal and moral issues at stake.

It is my conviction that some have already bought into it.

When men of knowledge, ability and character are marginalized by oblique references to their character as though they were sinister and out to promote some personal agenda, and all that without evidence, then intolerant tolerance has set it. It would be far more honorable to identify these men by name and cite the evidence to support these claims than to continually speak in an ever-widening circle of brethren as being “dishonorable.” Who are they? Do they have names. What is your evidence? While you are engaging in such besmirching of character, how about addressing forthrightly the issues at stake. Men of principle will not be silenced regardless of what names you call them. If that is the price for standing for truth, then so be it. Our Lord endured far more. We have not resisted unto blood!

What is truth? “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16).