By George “Chip” Hammond

Americans hate authority. Getting to that place, it seems, was an easy mutation of our DNA.

To use Samuel Rutherford’s categories, our founding fathers occupied the offices of “lesser magistrates” (colonial governors, executive committees, burgesses, and assemblymen) who believed it was their duty on behalf of the people to seek redress for, and then finally to resist the tyranny of the “greater magistrate” (King George and the Parliament). In the wake of the War for Independence that followed, the Constitutional Convention created and ratified a republic based largely on the republic of the Roman classical period with heavy influence from the Enlightenment and the emerging idea of “the consent of the governed,” all wrapped in a ethos of Christendom’s morality which they believed was universal, and (said Jefferson, deist though he was) the only logical morality.

The founders were well-studied in the lessons of history. A republic, they believed, was the best form of government, not to be confused with a democracy which they believed was the worst form of government. Even tyranny (absolute rule by one) was to be preferred to democracy (the rule of the mob with its fickle loyalties). By contrast, the government of the U.S. republic was made up of a Congress which crafted and proposed laws, and a president who signed them into law and executed them. The people choose their own representatives and leaders, either by direct vote (as in the case of senators and congressmen) or by electors (in the case of the president so that the southern, less populated states would not have their votes nullified by the northern, densely populated states). Choice of leaders was by the people, but rule was not by the people. The people were expected to submit to the lawful laws and directives of their governors as determined by the courts if challenged.

It would soon become evident, however, that many people did not understand their new government. George Washington was a greatly admired national hero, the only president in U.S. history to be elected by unanimous vote. Three years after the creation of the federal United States, the federal Congress imposed a tax on distilled beverages which Washington signed into law (a tax to which Washington himself was subject, as distilling was one of the many endeavors he undertook at Mount Vernon). The populations of Kentucky and Western Pennsylvania did not react well to the tax, complaining bitterly that they had just concluded a war “over taxes.” (Such a simplistic analysis of the situation with England justified the founders’ distrust of democracies.)

What resulted is an event in American history known as the Whiskey Rebellion. Distillers in frontier states and regions formed protests and used intimidation and threats of violence to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. In 1794 a U.S. Marshal was sent to western Pennsylvania to serve writs (warrants) to those who had not paid their taxes. In response 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of the tax inspector.

Responding to this alarming news, Washington called upon the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to send their militias to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode in command of the 13,000-man force. The insurrectionists, getting word of what was coming, disbanded and went home, although there was still wide-spread non-compliance, local fracases, and a couple of hundred arrests. It was evident that the people, at least the distillers of the frontier regions, did not well understand the new government they had recently cheered and celebrated. It was with good reason that in response to a question of what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had given the American people, Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The Christian’s Relationship to Authority

Four years after the Whisky Rebellion, John Adams wrote: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or galantry [sic], would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The statement is true enough, but historically ironic coming as it did from the pen of Adams, who had the same view of God and religion as Jefferson did (a belief that the Bible in as far as it was true was so because it was “reasonable,” not because it was revelation, which both denied). Adams was surely correct, however. Our Constitution presupposes a people who bow to a higher authority, and who are thus restrained in their natural tendency to greed, ambition, revenge, and gallantry (ie. the inability to turn the other cheek and let insult pass).

I’m told that William F. Buckley was a monarchist, that is, he believed that monarchy was the best form of government. Whether that is so of Buckley, all true Christians are monarchists. They recognize and bow to Jesus, Son of God and son of David after the flesh, as the King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16) who is to be obeyed cheerfully from the heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion. Monarchy is necessary, for as the writer of the Judges highlights from the days of Israel’s tribal confederacy, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25).

Having Jesus as King means that Christians submit to his rule, which rule is found in his Word, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Yet American theological trends over particularly the last forty years have caused the DNA of American Christianity to mutate cancerously, as though the whole of Christ’s law were summed up in one word: “Do as you please.”

What is the Christian’s relationship to the civil authority? Are we, like the early Anabaptist Jan of Leyden, to set up our own society with its own laws separate from the society that houses and protects us, as in many ways the Amish (though without the violence, and in fact committed to pacificism) do today? Are we to disregard civil authority if we don’t like what it says, if we think our taxes are too high, or we think our governors make bad decisions, or are reprobates?  What is the command of King Jesus? The Bible’s teaching about the relationship of the individual Christian and the church to the civil government is summed up in two passages, 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-8.

Looking at 1 Peter 2, the first thing that strikes us is that the phrase referring to government, “human institution,” is literally “human creation” (anthropene ktise). Peter is specifically addressing the situation of the Roman Empire under which they lived. In many ways, one might argue (but few in the Senate dared) that the Roman Empire was “illegal.” With the ascendance of Gaius Octavius (Caesar Augustus) the old Republic was essentially finished, and Rome entered its imperial phase. It was in the days of Caesar Augustus that Jesus was born (Luke 2). It was during the imperial reign of Tiberius (viz. “the king,” 2:13), and under the jurisdiction of the Roman governor in Judea, Pontius Pilate (viz. “governors,” 2:13), that Jesus carried out much of his earthly ministry (Luke 3:1), and the traditional dating of Peter’s two letters would place them during the imperial reign of Nero.

That this government was a “human creation” did not in any way detract from the Christian’s obligation to submit to it. As Paul says in Romans 13:1, the de facto governments that exist are “established by God.” This principle is borne out in Jesus’ interaction with the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.

We learn from sources such as Josephus that Rome had reserved the jus gladii (right of the sword, i.e., the death penalty) and had taken it away from the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (see John 18:31). Because the Sanhedrin’s judgement was to be based on the Torah rather than on Roman law, it might be argued that Pilate had no right, or less right, to judge Jesus than the Sanhedrin did. But Jesus does not reason this way. When Pilate questioned Jesus, “Will you not answer me? Do you not know that I have the authority to release you, and I have the authority to crucify you?” Jesus responded, “You would have no authority over me, unless it had been given you from above; therefore, the one who delivered me up to you has greater sin" (John 19:11).

All four Gospels record that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent of the charges brought against him, and thus his sentence of Jesus was a moral evil. Yet Jesus does not question Pilate’s authority over him. He recognizes it as having been given by God. In the providence of God, authority had been taken from the Sanhedrin and given to the Romans (“There is no authority except that which is established by God,” Romans 13:1). Thus the Sanhedrin, seeking to exercise an authority that was once theirs but in the providence of God no longer was (even though they would have argued that “by God’s law” they still had the right) were, according to Jesus, guilty of greater sin than Pilate.

In both Peter’s and Paul’s letters the end of such submission to human government is testimony to the truth of the gospel. For time out of mind religion has been used an excuse for disobedience. It sounds much more noble to invoke religion or “obedience to God” to justify one’s self-will rather than openly and baldly appealing to self-will. The subterfuge of appeal to religion is so common that when Christianity emerged its adherents were suspected of it. Peter tells the church to submit to the de facto governing authorities that are established by God to “silence the ignorance of foolish men,” i.e. those who suspected and voiced that the new religion was only a covering for a do-as-I-please self-will. Peter warns the recipients of this letter to be sure that this is never the case: “Act as free men, but do not use your freedom as a covering for evil but use it as bond slaves of God” (2:16). As Peter would say in the context of a submitting to a more immediate authority, there is no honor in bearing up under harsh treatment when you deserve it (1 Peter 2:20). Paul warns us regarding the civil authority, “But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing” (Romans 13:4).

In both passages the purpose of human government is the same: the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of those who do right (1 Peter 2:14. Romans 13:3-4a). What if human government fails to live up to its purpose and responsibility? What if it praises evil-doers and punishes in some way those who do right? That is a grievous situation, and one which some segments of American Christianity have used in the last forty years to undergird an argument that Christians do not need to obey laws with which they personally disagree. Such an argument is to twist the Scriptures and fly in the face of these two passages.

The Roman authorities did many things that were grievous to both Christians and Jews. They collected taxes that went to pay for pagan temples, and other institutions and projects that both Christians and Jews found morally repugnant. Many Jews believed that the rate of taxation was unjust. It was for these reasons that the Zealots had argued that it was unlawful to pay taxes to Caesar (a question about which the scribes and chief priests tried to entrap Jesus, Luke 20:22ff). But following Jesus’ teaching that we must render to Caesar what is due Caesar and to God what is due God, the apostles instruct us to pay taxes to whom taxes are due (Romans 13:7).

Should we honor the persons and directives of those in civil authority with whom we personally disagree? That question is answered definitively not only by the statements that the de facto government is established by God (Romans 13:1) and we are to yield to it “for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13), but by the very word “submit.”

Peter tells us to “submit for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.” The word “submit” (hypotasso) means “to be subject, subordinate to.” The idea that the Christian must submit to the governing authority as long as he or she is personally convinced of the rightness of the governing authority, or is what he would do if he was the governing authority, is wholly at odds with Scripture.

The word used for “submit” is used of the boy Jesus being “in submission” to his parents after they admonished him for staying behind in Jerusalem (Luke 2:51); for demons being in submission to the name of Jesus (Luke 10:17); for creation being in submission to futility “not of its own will” (Romans 8:20); and (controversial though it seems today), wives being called to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:24, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5), even when their husbands are disobedient to the Word (1 Peter 3:1).

The Bible never makes my obedience to a command given to me contingent on whether the person or institution I am commanded with respect to is obedient to the commands God gives to them. Thus, husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25), and wives are to submit to their husbands as the church is to submit to Christ (Ephesians 5:24). Husbands are not absolved of their responsibility to love their wives based on whether their wives submit to them. Their obligation to love their wives as Christ loved the church is absolute (that is, it stands by itself), and they will give account to God for failing to do so regardless of the actions of their wives.

Likewise, wives are called to submit to their husbands, and as Peter makes clear (3:1) this is irrespective of whether their husbands live up to their obligation to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Their obligation to submit to their husbands is absolute (it stands by itself), and they will give an account to God for failing to do so regardless of the actions of their husbands.

The preeminent picture of submission is the Lord Jesus Christ, who in the Garden of Gethsemane subordinate his will to the will of his Father (Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42). The doctrine of Monothelitism (“one will”) which arose in the seventh century, and which taught that Christ had only a divine will and not a human will, and thus made his submission to the Father in the garden a mere appearance and show, was rightly condemned as a heresy in A.D. 681 at the Third Council of Constantinople.

The Christian’s duty to submit to the civil government is absolute, that is, it stands by itself. It is irrespective of whether governors live up to their appointed task of praising good and punishing evil. As “servants of God” (Romans 13:6) those with civil authority will give an account to God, but the Christian will give an account to God for his submission to the civil government. The Christian may never legitimately use charges of injustice or reprobation (even when heart-felt, far less when trumped up to justify of self-will) for lack of submission.

Exceptions

Are there any exception to the Christian’s obligation to submit to the civil authority? The Bible indicates that there are. When a law obligates us to engage in some activity that is prohibited by the Word of God, or forbids us from engaging in a duty that is required by the Word of God, the Christian is obliged to obey God rather than human institutions, and to accept the consequences that result from obedience to God.

Daniel was taken into captivity into Babylon, and because of his ability was ordered into service of the pagan king, Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1). Daniel distinguished himself in his service to the king. Under the reign of Darius, he was given a high position which provoked jealousy among the other officials who served with him. Those who were jealous of him sought to discredit him, but he was such an upright man they could find no charge against him (Daniel 6:1-4). Observing him, his enemies realized, “We shall not find any ground of accusation against this Daniel unless we find it against him with regard to the law of his God” (Daniel 6:5). They devised a plan to appeal to the hubris of Darius, and at their leading he signed into irrevocable law a death-decree for anyone who for a period of thirty days made any prayer or petition to a king or god other than Darius.

“Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been signed, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before” (Daniel 6:10). Daniel’s disobedience to the king was not born of self-will, nor of mere disagreement, but arose from a decree that forbade Daniel to do what the Scriptures he spent his life studying clearly required.

In Acts 4 Peter and John were apprehended and brought before the Sanhedrin (the same body that had accused Jesus to Pilate). They were sternly instructed with threats of punishment to no longer speak or teach in the name of Jesus. Days later they were brought before the Sanhedrin again. “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us” (Act 5:28). The answer of the apostles was, “We must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). This was not a flippant or disrespectful remark. Jesus had told them that they would be his witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), and that they were to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and teach them to obey all that Jesus had commanded (Matthew 28:18-20).

If laws or instructions by the governing authorities require Christians to do things contrary to the plain instruction of God’s Word (not, though, some vague sense of justice), God must be obeyed rather than human institutions. If Christian ministers are instructed that they must perform same sex marriages in contradiction of the teaching of the Bible, they must refuse. If Christians are ordered by the government to have abortions in contradiction to the teaching of the Bible, they must obey God. If Christian ministers are ordered not to read certain passages of Scripture, or not to teach on certain biblical doctrines, or not to teach in the name of Jesus, they must refuse such orders. If Christians are prohibited from gathering in worship unless they teach such doctrines or worship in a way approved or prescribed by the state, they must seek ways to meet regardless of the state prohibition. If Christians are instructed to engage in racial hatred, or turn over neighbors of a targeted group to the state for extermination (as they were in Germany in the 1940s) in contradiction of love for neighbor, and the recognition that God’s people come from among every tribe and language and people (Revelation 5) they must disobey.

Under no circumstance, however, is the individual Christian acting without the authority of a lesser but lawful magistrate to disregard or disobey the civil authority established by God under pretense of serving God, when the law or order of the governing authority violates no passage or church-sanctioned principle (not privately held interpretation) of the Word of God. Whether or not the governing authority is Christian has no bearing on the issue. The governments to which Peter and Paul told us to be in submission were not “Christian” governments. Citing 1 Peter 2:13-16, Romans 13:1, 1 Kings 2:35, Acts 25:9-11, 2 Peter 2:1-11, and Jude 8-12, the Westminster Confession of Faith states, “Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted” (23.4).

Government Orders and the 2020 Pandemic

Shortly after Bethel went to live-stream worship in compliance with an executive order from the governor of Virginia, a person vital to conducing our worship service (musical accompaniment) called to say that she was not going to be able to come any longer. The reason was that she lives in West Virginia and the governor of her state had issued a stay at home order, discouraging people from traveling in or out of the state. She explained that while she didn’t think she would be physically prohibited from crossing the border on Sundays, she thought it would be a poor testimony to her neighbors as they would see her leave each Sunday morning and know that she was going to worship in Virginia in a real or perceived disregard of the governor’s orders. Initially a bit panicked at what we would do without her, I told her I understood and that she should do as her conscience directed. God honored this, and we quickly found a musical substitute.

While most churches and many Christian people have acquitted themselves well in the current crisis and have been a testimony to Christ both in their submission to authority and in their love for neighbor, the ones who haven’t have garnered media attention and have been a poor testimony to Christ.

The primary requirement of civil authority in times when public peace, welfare, or health is threaten is to seek the public good. This has been the impetus for the guidelines enumerated by the president, and the executive orders issued by the governors of each state. It is a tense and difficult time, and because places like New York and New Jersey were slow to respond and under prepared with disastrous results, the governors of many states have determined that if an error is to be made, they will err on the side of caution.

As mentioned earlier, hatred of authority seems to be in the very DNA of Americans. It should not be in the DNA of Christians, for “the governing authorities have been established by God” (Romans 13:1), and therefore whoever “resists the authority has opposed the ordinance of God” (Romans 13:2). The issues faced by our government require very hard decisions with incomplete information. The response of Christians should be, not criticism of our government leaders (far less mockery of them), but prayer for them. Larger Catechism 127 notes that we owe to those over us in the commonwealth (c.f. Larger Catechism 124) the honor of “all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitations of their virtues and graces; . . . fidelity to, defense, and maintenance of their persons and authority . . . bearing with their infirmities and covering them in love” so as to be “an honor to them and their government.”

The Larger Catechism also warns us of sinning against them by “envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against their persons and [offices], . . . cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government” (Larger Catechism 128). If you want a fleshing out of what such “refractory and scandalous carriage” looks like, you need only peruse Facebook and look for posts about the president or the governors of the various states.

What of the closure of churches for in-person gatherings? Should this order be disregarded (as some churches have) because it violates the passage of Scripture which tells us, “Do not give up assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encourage one another all the more as you see the day drawing near” (Hebrews 10:25)? How does such a passage apply in our current situation?

If the governor’s order singled out churches this would indeed be a cause for concern. But the order extends to all places in which people congregate together, including restaurants, bars, movie theaters, sports courts and arenas, and beaches. Churches do not have a special exception by virtue of being churches (see Westminster Confession of Faith 23.4), just as churches are not exempted from building codes, fire codes, occupancy codes and the like which regulate the rest of society.

Furthermore, as Sinclair Ferguson recently pointed out, the blessings of modern technology have made it so churches can still worship, albeit in a separated and distanced way. In the past during times of plague churches would simply be closed and not reopen until the danger was passed.

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) whose practical and pastoral theologies are still required reading in many seminaries for preparation for the pastoral ministry  wrote in 1673: “May we omit Church-assemblies on the Lord’s day, if the magistrate for­bid them? Answer: 1. It is one thing to forbid them for a time, upon some special cause (as infection by pestilence, fire, war, etc.), and another thing to forbid them statedly or profanely. . . 4. The assembly and the circumstances of the assembly must be distinguished: 1) If the magistrate for a greater good, (as the common safety) forbid church assemblies in a time of pestilence, assault of enemies, or fire, or the like necessity, it is a duty to obey him” (A Christian Directory, or A Sum of Practical Theology, question 109).

Some people under the cover the religion have charged the governor with hypocrisy for de facto closing their places of business or churches but allowing people to go to grocery stores and abortion clinics. Even if such cases were demonstrably hypocritical, publicly posting such things on social media hardly displays a “bearing with their infirmities and covering them in love” (Larger Catechism 124).

While not all attend church, all must eat. It is difficult to see how preventing people from obtaining food warrants a charge of hypocrisy. People do not go to grocery stores to congregate; they keep to themselves and do their business, the very opposite of what attending church should look like.

Regarding abortion clinics being open: abortion is a moral evil and codified as such in the earliest manual of church order, the Didache (c. 200). It is a blight on modern society. But it is, unfortunately, allowable under current U.S. law. It is a situation I pray will change, and work to change as I’m able, but it would be unreasonable to expect that something lamentably deemed a necessary medical procedure would be somehow re-categorized during a pandemic. One woman from another church charged the governor with “hypocrisy” for leaving clinics open to operate. But our current governor has expressed his support for abortion. How is it hypocritical for one to act consistently with his beliefs (misguided though they may be) and with current U.S. law? Abortion is something that all Christians should pray against and work to change, but it is unreasonable to think that the prevailing laws and attitudes toward it will be changed during an international emergency.

William Tyndale, early English reformer and Bible translator, was betrayed, arrested, tried and condemned to be executed by strangulation. His dying words were not defiant invective toward the king, or some charge of “hypocrisy,” but rather a prayer, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” The King of England at the time was Henry VIII who had been given a special commendation by the pope for his defense of Romanism against the Reformation, but who would be the King under whom the Reformation would come to England. God had answered Tyndale’s dying prayer. It is with this event from history in mind that I do not revile Governor Northam for his support of abortion, but I do often pray, “Lord, open the governor of Virginia’s eyes.”

Redress of Grievance

I recently had someone ask me, “Do you think that all the measures that have been taken regarding this pandemic will have been necessary?” My answer is that I simply don’t know, and we likely won’t know until after the fact. Even then, it will be hard to tell. When anti-terrorist agencies do their job well, they appear to be unnecessary because we don’t suffer terrorist attacks. Likewise, when the mitigation efforts of epidemiologists are effective, the result is a lack of wide-spread infection. But it is possible that we will discover that some of the steps we took were too restrictive and unnecessary, although there will have been no way of knowing that until it’s over.

There seems to be growing historical evidence that Franklin Roosevelt was warned of the threat posed by the Japanese Navy but miscalculated the real danger it posed. Not taking the threat seriously caused disaster and cost American lives. On the other hand, after the on-set of the War, air raid sirens on coastal cities would sound from time to time at night, sending the city into draconianly enforced black-out conditions and ensuing wide-spread fear (my mother experienced these times as a girl living in Paterson, New Jersey). Those draconian measures and the wide-spread fear the air raid sirens produced proved unnecessary. No air raid ever came on the mainland. However, there was no way to know this before the fact, and a miscalculation would have been catastrophic.

In the fog-of-war conditions created by this pandemic there could indeed be some missteps by government. In Greenville, Mississippi, church-goers attending a drive-in service were issued $500 summonses, a move that seemed extreme as the attenders were in closed cars listening to the service broadcast over the radio.

Yet Greenville hardly seems a place for anti-Christian sentiment. The mayor there was voted into office with 74 percent of the popular vote, a fact he proudly displays on his website as the highest percentage ever received by a mayoral candidate in Greenville. He also prominently displays his church roots and Christian beliefs, prompting reasonable people to ask why he sought to close this service. In an interview the mayor said his concern was that the service went on for two hours, and the building was opened so the bathrooms could be used. People attending the service were getting out of their cars to use the bathrooms and (especially children) were not adhering to social distancing requirements.

The U.S. Department of Justice is looking into the incident, but some professed Christians were quick to cry anti-Christian discrimination without any investigation of why the Mayor did what he did. They read a post on Facebook, believed it, and passed it on (a practice which should never be countenanced or engaged in by a Reformed Christian; see Larger Catechism 145).

How should Christians handle grievances, or perceived injustices by civil authorities? Should they engage in tale-bearing, or stirring up strife on social media? Should they drive around the capitols of their states blowing their horns and seeking to disrupt traffic and the operation of businesses and government?

First, the church itself as such should tread very carefully when it comes to weighing in on civil matters. Westminster Confession of Faith 31.5 cautions, “Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary.”

With regard to individual Christians, the Ninth Commandment as elucidated by the Larger Catechism requires us to preserve the good name of our neighbor (3 John 12); a charitable esteem of our neighbors (Hebrews 6:9, 1 Corinthians  13:7); a ready receiving of a good report and an unwillingness to receive an evil report concerning them (1 Corinthians  13:6, Psalms 15:3). It likewise forbids slandering, back-biting, tale-bearing, scoffing, and reviling (Ps 50:20, James 4:11, Jeremiah 38:4, Leviticus 19:19, Romans 1:29-30, Galatians  4:29, 1 Corinthians  6:10), aggravating small faults (Matthew 7:3-5), stopping our ears against a just defense (Acts 7:56-57, Job 31:13-14), rejoicing in a person’s disgrace and infamy (Jeremiah 48:27), and scornful contempt (Psalms 35:15-21). If such strictures were applied to the commentators at CNN and Fox News they would scarcely have anything to talk about. Facebook use would diminish by probably 90 percent if people could no longer post scornful, reviling, mocking memes, or portray their political enemies and those not of their tribe in Nazi uniforms.

Does this mean that Christians should never be involved in public assemblies of protest? Not necessarily. Years ago, before we got busy with parenting, I used to attend the annual March for Life. It was a remarkable event for its quiet composure. There was no angry shouting. Most notable was the response to hecklers and those trying to instigate fights. The marchers did not return evil for evil or insult for insult (see 1 Peter 3:9-14), but followed the example of Christ who “when he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23).

There are other groups associated with other causes, however, which, although I agree with and adhere to their goals, I have had to dissociate myself from publicly because they are the very incarnation of violations of the principles of the Bible in their attitudes toward and interaction with those God has placed in authority over us, and with their neighbors who may disagree with them. I have never seen anyone won over by being shouted down, mocked, maligned, mischaracterized, or disrespected. There are precious few examples in the Bible of good coming from the assembly of a mob. At best, they stir up resentment and discord. At worst they stir up rashness and violence.

The ways open to Christians to be agents of change are numerous. The first is prayer (James 5:16-18). We under-utilize and underestimate prayer. It is possible for people or situations to be changed through prayer alone when no other course is open. In addition to prayer, we may also call or write our representatives or arrange to meet with them (particularly for state or local representatives, it is not very difficult to arrange a meeting) to speak to them in person. Calling injustices to the attention of those whose job it is to investigate such injustices is a legitimate redress of grievance, as is bringing suit when warranted. And of course, we can vote at regular intervals, or even run for office ourselves.

But in the end, it is possible that we will not get what we want, either because justice in this world is imperfect, or because we are wrong in our assessment of the situation or simply have a difference of opinion with others without any real biblical basis. In either case, the Christian virtue of contentment, and humbling ourselves under God’s hand shows the recognition that we are not our own autonomous authorities, that we understand that God is sovereign over providence, that he has placed human institutions over us to which we are to be in submission, and which to resist in any way not approved by God’s Word is to oppose the ordinance of God.

Repentance

It may be that considering these Scriptures and our confessional standards you feel convicted by some of the ways in which you have acted with respect to the governing authorities. You may think the purpose of this article is to call you to repentance.

It is not. It is to offer you my repentance. I have often said, “America has given the world many wonderful things; her versions of the ancient faith are not among them.”

I came to faith in Christ within that forty-year period I spoke of at the beginning of this article, and it shaped my thinking in ways I was unaware of. When I was at Westminster Seminary nearly thirty years ago my teachers tried to warn me about the current condition of Christianity in America, and I thought I understood. But just as a fish probably doesn’t know that it is wet, I could not understand how strong the cultural effects of Jerry Falwell, CBN, and the “reconstruction” movement had been on me.

When I was younger my speech and attitude toward those God had placed in civil authority over me were influenced more by the mob of modern Christianity than by the Shepherd of the sheep. I spoke, wrote, and commented in ways that were unbecoming of a follower of Christ, much less one entrusted with his gospel (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:4). Lest I be guilty of “hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession” (Larger Catechism 145), I ask you to forgive me for my failure to be a good example. For the last five years I have endeavored to walk more circumspectly in deference to God’s commands. I have not done so perfectly, but I will by God’s grace continue to strive to be circumspect and obedient in the future. So help me God.

* Quotations from older materials have been updated to use modern capitalization style.