In our study on government so far we have emphasized the Christian’s responsibility. So we covered "Our Duty to Government" two weeks ago and "Christian Living Under Authority" last week. The next logical step in this study is to place emphasis on "The Duty of Government," which is the topic for this morning.

This is timely in light of the presidential election and all of the difficulties that surround it. It is an extremely important question to inquire about the duties and responsibilities of persons who hold public office ("What is the duty of the office they hold?"). As Christians, we want to know how this question is answered in the Scriptures.

Again, what we learn about ruling authorities teaches us about all that have authority such as parents, elders, teachers, and coaches. By analogy, the study of one area like governing authority fills out the picture regarding all other areas where authority is exercised.

We have talked about the double-edged sword. The focus here is to simply recognize the application of the golden rule. Thus, we must say, "How I carry myself in authority is how I want to have others carry themselves in authority over me."

Our goal this morning then is to discover what the Bible has to say regarding the exercise of authority, especially the exercise of authority by those who govern.

It is an understatement to say that this is a complicated biblical study. There are two perspectives that converge and conflict. 1) The scriptural interaction with government varies over biblical history (from patriarchal government to judges, kings, Pharoahs, and Caesars). And notably, no particular form of government is put forth as binding on all the nations. But there are elements given in Scripture of a theory of government; there are broad principles that are clear and unambiguous and there are specific points on which good Christian thinkers differ. That is one perspective that complicates this study. 2) Also, there is an ongoing debate as to whether or not the United States is a Christian nation. We should not be uncritical of the principles set up by the founding fathers at the same time that we deeply value the very workable system of government that we have inherited. Critique has to follow both theological and practical lines.

Of course, being critical as a Christian means that the goal is to exercise constructive criticism as a part of the cluster of graces I like to label the OMH graces (open-minded humility graces). And it means that we will search the Scriptures for both explicit and implicit principles that should guide our national life. For example, a system of limited government with a balance of powers guided by the law is a reasonable implication from the biblical doctrine of fallen human nature. Another example is the bearing of God’s sovereignty over state sovereignty. No government is sovereign in the most important sense. None have autonomy in relation to God though each does have independence from the other (hence the notion of national sovereignty and within our country of sovereign states who aligned themselves together to form a common union: the United States). Let’s consider two things over all: this duty 1) stated, and 2) qualified.

1A.The duty stated

Some key passages give us a concise outline concerning what it takes to govern responsibly. We get this outline by implication in four ways. First, we derive the duty of governors from the explicit purpose of the powers that be. This purpose is found in the passages we have been studying of late. In Romans 13:3b-4 we learn that ruling authorities are supposed to "commend you" who do what is right, "to do you good," and "to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Peter’s account is similar with nuances but the direct purpose is "to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right" (1 Pet. 2:14). What does this imply about the duty of leaders? They have an obligation to know and apply God’s definition of right and wrong. Otherwise, they are unable to properly punish wrong doers and properly commend right doers. Without God’s law, right and wrong is determined by those who have the greatest power or the largest number. Then the good is defined by polls if not by violence. So, the first implication is that rulers are to be informed by biblical law in their formulation of civil law. This has some problems attached to it that I want to discuss later.

Second, their duty is implied in the goal of prayer on their behalf. Paul says, "pray for those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Tim. 2:2). The social benefit for the people of God implies the kind of rule that works to that end. Now the going gets tougher. To work to this end, governing authorities must not only be students of God’s word but they must somehow support, encourage, and protect godliness and holiness also defined by God’s word. I’ll say more about this as we go forward but suffice it to say that this does not sound like an impenetrable wall of separation between church and state. The NEB (New English Bible) puts the goal in plain terms like this: "that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in full observance of religion and high standards of morality."

Third, their duty is implied in the wisdom required for the service they render. Consider how this is presented in Psalm 2:10-12 where kings are directly addressed. Rebellion against God’s rule by claiming autonomy is vain and foolish (2:1-9). These verses give notable attention to the kingship of Christ. The primary duty of kings is to acknowledge the King as their rightful sovereign. They are to give Him homage ("kiss the Son"), exercise wisdom, be warned and serve in a way that reflects the reality that they stand before God’s judgment and at His mercy. Leaders are to acknowledge Christ and thus exercise authority as those under His sovereign rule.

Fourth, their duty is implied in the great commission. In fulfillment of what is anticipated in Psalm 2, Christ was marked out as the Son of God by the resurrection (Rom. 1:4) and given all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:19-20). In His name the nations are to be discipled and taught His commandments. He is king of kings and all in authority ought to acknowledge that fact by living under the authority of His instruction as His disciples.

It is evident that there is no justification here for a wall of absolute separation between ruling authority and religious instruction. The right and wrong that is to be commended and punished is defined by the commandments of the risen Lord Jesus. It will take some careful thought to see how this works out in a practical way. But we can now state the duty of rulers in a short summary: they are to apply God’s law to civil life for the good of His church.

2A. The duty of those who govern qualified

The summary just given seems to emerge reasonably from the passages cited. But there are some truly thorny difficulties when this is stated in unqualified terms, a central one being the historical problem of religious persecution.

To work our way to some qualification, I would like to consider the example of John Calvin. Here is an opening thought question: "Does Calvin have a balanced view of government?" More narrowly put, "Does Calvin present a balanced view of government in his commentary on 1 Timothy published in 1556 three years after the execution of Servetus in Calvin’s home town of Geneva?"

The context of prayer. In his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:2 he says that kings are mentioned for prayer "because, more than all others, they might be hated by Christians" given that the magistrates of the time of Peter were "so many sworn enemies of Christ." Thus the thought might occur to Christians that they should not pray for those leaders who "fight against the kingdom of Christ." But the apostle "meets this difficulty" by expressly exhorting prayer for them also. "Indeed," he says, "the depravity of men is not a reason why God’s ordinance should not be loved. Even though they "fall short of the divine appointment, still we must not on that account cease to love what belongs to God." Jeremiah is an example of an Israelite believer living under a foreign government where he not only obeyed the laws of the land but also encouraged prayer for peace like Paul does in Romans. The OT prophet said, "Pray for the peace of Babylon, for in their peace you shall have peace" (Jer. 29:7).

Three fruits of government. Calvin then cites three fruits of government given in 1 Timothy 2:2. First, "magistrates are armed with the sword, in order to keep us in peace. If they did not restrain the hardihood of wicked men, every place would be full of robberies and murders. The true way of maintaining peace, therefore, is, when every one obtains what is his own, and the violence of the more powerful is kept under restraint." Second, they preserve godliness. This takes place "when magistrates give themselves to promote religion, to maintain the worship of God, and to take care that sacred ordinances be observed with due reverence." Third, armed with the sword they produce the fruit of public decency because "it is the business of magistrates to prevent men from abandoning themselves to brutal filthiness or flagitious conduct, but, on the contrary, to promote decency and moderation."

What would it be like without these fruits? He then directs us to think about what would happen if these three fruits were taken away. That would lead to "cruel barbarism." Therefore, if we are concerned about peace, godliness, and public decency we must "be solicitous about those through whose agency we obtain such distinguished benefits." To oppose government on principle is to oppose God so we should not claim as some do that all government is "opposed to religion." Since the Holy Spirit is the author of this text, the sentiment that government is opposed to religion must be from the devil.

What if governors are unworthy?  Guided by the Holy Spirit it is "our duty, therefore, is not only to pray for those who are already worthy, but we must pray to God that he may make bad men good."  He compares prayer for magistrates with asking the Lord "to make the earth fertile by his blessing." We might like the parallel he makes between political rulers and dirt (cf. "dirt bags" and "dirty" politicians). But his point is that we are to pray for the blessing of magistrates like we pray for a productive earth: "we ought to consider the ordinary means that he has appointed by his providence." As you pray for the earth to do its assigned and designed job so you ought to pray for those in rule to do their assigned and designed job.What about situations where the blessings do not flow through our leaders? He says it is "our own fault. It is the wrath of God that renders magistrates useless to us, in the same manner that it renders the earth barren; and therefore, we ought to pray for the removal of those chastisements which have been brought upon us by our sins."

What then is to be said in summary about the duty of governors?   To be sure, they are reminded here of their duty: "It is not enough, if by giving to every one what is due, they restrain all acts of violence, and maintain peace; but they must likewise endeavour to promote religion, and to regulate morals by wholesome discipline." They are responsible to "kiss the Son" (Ps. 2:12) and are to be "nursing-fathers of the Church" (Isa. 49:23). So, "they have no right to flatter themselves, if they neglect to lend their assistance to maintain the worship of God."

What happened in the case of Servetus in 1553?  Standard civil law written in the centuries old Codex of Justinian had been and continued to be used in cities across Europe just as they were used in Geneva. According to the Codex the penalty for denying the Trinity was death. Servetus was given a trial, found guilty, held to his convictions, and was burned at the stake. Among the crimes listed was his opposition to infant baptism!

The civil rulers of Geneva were referred to as the Little Council. In the months of the trial of Servetus, Calvin’s influence over this council was minimal. For example, the council gave a man the right to communion even though he was under discipline by the church consistory. Because he opposed the council (the man did not take communion), Calvin was nearly exiled. Many on the council were strong opponents of Calvin.

In the case against Servetus, Calvin had called for his arrest and served in effect as his prosecutor. The council was convinced that Servetus was guilty but wished to free him (probably exile) by getting advice to that end from four Swiss cities. But all the cities called for strong punishment including death by fire. The Little Council for various political reasons sentenced Servetus to be attached to a stake and burned with his book to ashes. Immediately, Calvin begged that the sword be used instead of burning as more merciful but his request was refused.

What was Calvin’s part in the execution of Servetus?  He did not give the sentence of death. That arose because of political pressures between the Little Council and its sister cities. But Calvin did have a share in the execution of Servetus. He had him arrested, charged him, prosecuted him, begged him to repent in public and in private visits to his prison cell, and sought a more merciful method of killing. Although Calvin was ahead of his time in many other ways, in this case he was a man of his time.

Concluding remarks

Intuitively, we sense that the duty of government to promote godliness and worship must be qualified. From our perspective as citizens of a country where such actions as took place at Geneva are unlawful, we find them appalling. It causes one to tremble to think of killing someone or of being killed over the doctrine of baptism.

So we must speak of qualification. Giving the death penalty for theological convictions is not within jurisdiction of the state. But there is still a main dish on the table! We cannot simply discount the implications from the main texts on the duty of ruling authorities. Civil leaders are to "kiss the Son" acknowledging His final kingship. They are to promote godliness and holiness as "foster fathers" to the church. They are to be disciples committed to living under the authority of the triune God. They are to preserve public decency by applying the law of God.

In one sense, this is simply saying that God commands all men everywhere, including rulers, to repent, and to submit to the authority of the risen Christ. No government or governor is autonomous. They have a duty to discharge as God’s deacons and priests in a divinely ordained civil office.

Next time we will try to clarify the duty of those who govern. This will mean discussing how this is done in matters like the separation of church and state. (cf. The Little Council did not respect the authority of the elders of the church regarding communion but the church elders had to abide by the laws of the land, or, at times, submit to exile to save their lives).