Introduction

Today I want to discuss "Formulating A Christian Philosophy of Government." My topic is a philosophy in the sense of wise principles that are obtained in the pursuit of wisdom. But it is a Christian philosophy that we seek. Thus, as we seek a biblical philosophy of government, we do so from the perspective of fulfillment of the OT in the person and work of Christ that is recorded in the NT. The focus here on government emerges from our study in Romans where we are given a powerful exhortation to submit to ruling authorities. We thus considered the duty of the governed, which led to consideration of the correlative duty of those who govern. "Formulating" points to the process and principles by which a Christian view of government is developed. This is a work in progress.

A wall with doors.  The illustration of a solid wall of separation between stated and church is a good place to review from last week. It is impossible to draw an absolute wall of division between the state and the church because governors answer to the Head of the church, Christ, and they must rule for the good of His church. Various passages like Romans 13 that tell us that government is ordained and regulated by the risen Lord Jesus. He is the ultimate commander of all who govern. Therefore, it is inconceivable that they can properly perform their duties to Christ in a way that opposes the church.

But as we saw in Calvin’s Geneva, how the state promotes the holiness of the church is a difficult point and one where there have been many regrettable failures. There is no solid wall of division but there is a wall with precise doors of entry from the one to the other. In a Christian philosophy of government, the attempt is to discover these doors and grease their hinges.

It is a penetrable wall separating state and church. This means that there is a fundamental sovereignty or independence of the spheres of state and church but they are linked. There is interdependence between them. This leads to the question of how they properly interface. To answer this question we need a great deal of biblical wisdom.

For today. What I propose for today is that we cover two things: 1) historical perspective on formulating a Christian philosophy of government, and 2) the place of the law in the formulating a Christian philosophy of government.

1A. Historical perspective

For historical perspective, I want to outline four major views of government presented in a book titled, God and Politics (Gary Scott Smith, ed., 1989). This narrows our study to matters of concern being expressed by reformed thinkers.

The common ground held by each position can be abbreviated in the following way based on "A Summary of Agreements and Disagreements" drafted by the participants in this dialogue.

All four reformed views hold that the risen Christ is universal King of kings, and therefore, civil officials have an ordained function like that of church and family members. These officials are required by God to rule justly "recognizing the dignity of all persons as created in His image" regardless of the fact that the United States, for example, is a religiously pluralistic society. The authoritative standard that ought to guide civil leaders is the Bible that has both continuities and discontinuities between the OT and the NT with attending difficulties. Christians should resist secularization by peacefully and persuasively promoting biblical precepts in political life through the development of "strong families, churches, and organizations" (285).

To crystallize the agreements, we can outline with the key words: 1) Christ, 2) Authority,3) Magistrates, and 4) Christians.

Christ is king of the nations and their leaders. He has ordained and He regulates their role in society. He regulates with absolute authority exercised through His authoritative word, the OT and NT with attending continuities and discontinuities that have to be sorted out.

Magistrates are duty bound to His word to rule justly recognizing all persons as created in His image.

Christians are to put forth peaceful and persuasive efforts to promote biblical precepts in political life. They are not only required to submit to government but are to promote good rule.

In a rough and ready way we can divide the disagreements into two categories: biblical and historical (past and present). The biblical disagreements center on the nature of continuity and discontinuity between OT and NT especially regarding the Mosaic Law. This can be summarized in the following questions. How does the distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil law apply to contemporary politics? How do we define civil justice? What is the task and power of the state? "To what extent should the state tolerate the practice and promulgation of non-Christian world views and religious confessions?"

The historical disagreements concern the United States. Two questions summarize the differences here. Regarding the past, "What was the original nature of the U. S. Constitution-to what degree is it Christian or secular?" And in the present, "Should the Constitution formally recognize Christ as supreme authority over the nation?" (286).

The key words for a summary outline of the disagreements are law and United States.   1) They disagree over how to define the law of God in relation to the role of civil government, especially as to how the Mosaic system comes to bear in the NT with respect to matters of state and church.  2) Disagreement exists as to whether or not the original Constitution is Christian in nature. And they disagree with respect to backing a constitutional amendment in which Christ is acknowledged as supreme authority over the nation.

The names given to each position direct to that which is accented in each. Principled pluralism is the view that places the strongest emphasis on pluralism in the U.S. It is not that the others do not recognize this factor in some way but principled pluralism tries to work with this fact in a distinct way. What is that distinct way (which the others see as extreme)? It is that no matter what confession of faith the state may voice (humanism, Islam, Christian, etc), officials are obligated to exercise their authority according to their religious convictions whatever they may be whether Christian or not (problem: under Christ, they ought to ignore Him).

Theonomy stresses the application of the civil laws of the OT to political life today. The name, theonomy, is literally rendered God’s law. One of its most controversial points, even within its own camp, is the application of the death penalty according to the standard set in the Mosaic civil laws.

Christian America stresses our Christian heritage as a nation and calls for the application of the law of God in principle and not per the outline in the civil laws of the OT. It stresses compromise and alliances in practical and common sense ways rather than by the directives of OT civil law.

National confessionalism seeks to move the U.S. toward becoming a Christian nation for the first time. One cause it has promoted over the last hundred years has been an amendment to the Constitution declaring Christ as supreme authority as the fundamental guiding principle in for all political activity. The NRA (National Reform Association, founded 1864) presented such a proposal at the end of the nineteenth century. It was debated in the House of Representatives twice and rejected both times.

My goal at present is to work on a major point in this debate, which is the place of the law of God in as positive a way as I can. To that we now turn.

2A. The place of the law

We stressed last time that it is necessary to have an objective standard in order for those who govern to fulfill their purpose of commending the good and punishing the wrong. Kings and presidents are duty bound to "kiss the Son" and to carry out their business in acknowledged submission to the authority of Christ. To do this there must be an objective standard. This objective standard is God’s will summarized in the Ten Commandments also called the Decalogue (the ten-fold log, the log with ten entries, the ten words).

So one step in establishing a philosophy of government (of governing) is to defend the abiding validity and universality of the Ten Commandments. That argument needs to be laid out first (as a root to the tree or foundation to the building). Why do we need to make this argument?

There are some difficulties reflected in the following questions. How do we justify the claim that the Ten Commandments given to Israel apply to Christians? Should they not be seen as historically bound to the OT people of God? How can that which was given the redeemed from Egypt be applied to unbelievers today, especially in their governing duties? But if you accent the point that the law was given to redeemed Israel, how do you avoid a false sacred-secular disjunction?

It is also needed because of many negative grids. Some may have been raised in a religious context where the commandments were stressed in order to merit God's favor. Others may have the backdrop of a legalism in which all kinds of church rules were imposed on them that bound the conscience to commandments of men. We might resist some positive relation to the law because of fear of its high and holy demands and a due sense of our sin.

It may be resisted because of a biblical theology that relegates the law to the distant past. That may be done to such a degree that the law is rendered irrelevant to the saint today. The Sermon on the Mount with its stress on the law may be made irrelevant by relegating its demands to the future (say, as laws of the millennial age).

We might have difficulty with the rigor of the law leaving the issue of legalism aside for the moment. Or, one may simply be impressed with an abundance of antithetic language in the NT, language that speaks in very antithetical terms about the law of God (we are not under law but under grace, etc.).

To be brief, I want to discuss the main passages supporting the abiding validity of the Ten Commandments. Next time I will work through some objections. There are many difficulties in this area of study. What I propose for now is to give positive support for the abiding validity of the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God that is binding to the end of the age. We need to cross this bridge in order to develop a Christian philosophy of government. There are a number of passages that help us counteract various forms of resistance to the law that we may have.

1B. Looking back to the old

We are to live by every word from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16), the NT points us back to the OT for guidance in good works and in righteous living. So what are we directed back to?

In the OT itself, keeping the commandments is the whole duty of man (Ecc. 12:13). It is the saints delight in life (Ps. 1) and the way the young cleanse their ways (119:9).

In Psalm 119:1-24 full obedience is required (4). It is to be from the heart (2). It is the way of blessing, cleansing, and delight (1, 2, 14, 16, 24).

Keeping and obeying God's commands involves keeping God's word (119:15, 16,24). Jesus in John 15 teaches the same fruit of joy and delight (vs. 10-11).

There are two matters of emphasis are here. 1) There is a rich welcome, warm, delightful, experience for the saints of God, by faith from the heart, in living under the commandments of God in the OT, that is, as a person under the law in the OT (this of course includes the Ten Commandments). 2) The NT operates in the same milieu; it looks to the OT word for guidance in good works and righteousness of life. Happiness and joy are associated with this walk in righteous deeds defined by the law (Jn. 15:10-11).

2B. Structure for the new

Consider Matthew 5:17 with 9:14-17. Many things that Jesus did indicate some great change from the OT to the NT as epitomized in the old/new wineskin illustration (Matt. 9:14-17). Change is necessary or the old wineskin will burst.

But Jesus tells us how we are not to think about the law. He cautions us against over pressing discontinuity when he tells us how we ought to think about His relation to the law: do not think discontinuity as your first foot forward in these areas. We are not to think that He came to abolish the law (to do away with it or bring it to an end). Instead, He came to bring it forward in fulfillment. So we are to look for the fulfillment form of the law as a basic posture.

What is the theme? It is the law and the prophets, exemplified in the least of God's commandments (note the context 17-19). All the OT commandments are in view. In the last phrase we have literally "until all comes to be." As many scholars point out "accomplished" is a mistranslation and suggests that "all" refers to the law and prophets. But that is incorrect. The word "all" has no particularization in the context (cf. Bahnsen, Theonomy, 79). So it should be taken as meaning all things. Thus the law abides until all things come to pass, until history unfolds to its end when "heaven and earth pass away." The law abides as long as human history continues.

Compare this with the great commission where we are told to teach all that Christ commanded- to the end of the age (Matt. 28:20). Also, the Matthew 5 context looks ahead to the new covenant Christian community that is a royal priesthood in the kingdom of God's dear son (5:19, keep and teach the least of these commandments).

Summary. So, given the fact of change, some of it being immense, our first foot forward is to be to think continuance, to look for fulfillment forms of the OT laws. We are to follow Jesus in this. We are therefore to look for continuity: do not think discontinuity but continuity. With regard to the impact of the law in your life think continuity. Under the kingship of Jesus think continuity. All of the OT law applies today, to all, and thus to all who govern. It does so in a new wineskin form that houses the new wine of fulfillment brought by Christ.

3B. Love and the law

It is easy to empathize with the view that love and law are incongruent, that they do not mix well. Consider the claim that a husband is not to love his wife out of a sense of duty but spontaneously (as if law duty involved saying "O honey, here are some flowers I have to give you because of God's command," suggesting "I do not want to."). But many passages combine love with law without the least bit of tension (cf. Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10; I Jn. 2:3-5 3:21, 22).

4B. Paul and the law

A few key passages where Paul expresses the continuous nature of the law are in Romans 3:31 (we uphold the law), 8:4 (law is fulfilled in us), 13:8-11 (the Ten define love). What we have is the word of God our King that we are duty bound to obey. His kingly word to us is expressed in many commandments in OT and NT. The 10 commandments summarize His word to us. And an even more succinct summation is found in the commands to love God and your neighbor as yourself.

Conclusion. Having established its abiding validity (at least briefly given the emphasis of this study), we can now state this fundamental point: the Ten Commandments apply to government. Those who govern have the duty to discharge their office as persons under the authority of the commandments of Christ in their true spirit and intent, in new covenant fulfillment.

It should be a matter of prayer for those in authority that they submit themselves to the sovereign authority of Christ and to the classic summary of that authority found in the Ten Commandments. As we pray about the obedience of others to the law of Christ, we must come to terms with our own duty as well, to a love/duty that is sweeter than honey: "Oh, how I love your law!" (Ps. 119:97).