Joy in Christendom

I'm sorry, we are but exiles in Babylon

I say, "The Lord shall have dominion - He shall have the schools, television and radio stations, music, art, families, law and the magistrate;  this means nothing short of the Christianization of all things, all institutions, all areas of life.  The Gospel will conquer in history, in time.  The world increase in the fullness there of and his Kingdom will grow on earth and it is in Heaven.  Wherever there is darkness, injustice, profanity, there is need for the Gospel - in our schools, television and radio stations, music, art, families, law and the magistrate.  We were given the Great Commission, and what He starts, He is faithful to complete it." (Dan 2:35, Psa 110:1, Mat 13:31-33, 1Cor 15:23, 15:25)

You then reply with, "ah, but we are just exiles in Babylon; for this is not our home".

You say, "but we would like for you to volunteer in the church's nursery".

I say, "ah, but we are just exiles in Babylon; for this is not our home".

You say, "can you please host a small group in your home?"

I say "ah, but we are just exiles in Babylon; for this is not our home".

You say, "we could use your help cleaning the church's bathrooms".

I say, "ah, but we are just exiles in Babylon; for this is not our home".

You say, "we are in need of a new church building, would you please contribute your money?"

I say, "ah, but we are just exiles in Babylon; for this is not our home".

You say, "you need to evangelize, and tell your neighbor about Jesus".

I say, "ah, but we are just exiles in Babylon; for this is not our home".

You say, "the Lord is my salvation"

I say, "ah, but we are just exiles in Babylon; for this is not our home".

If the Lord does not have all, He has nothing.  The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” Psa 110:1

It was a theocracy after all

One of the most improperly and overly used words in the reformed Church the last decade, maybe longer, has been this word "theocracy". Typically, it is used in conjunction with political debates between Christians, especially when one of the sides demands a Biblical standard for government.  The response is often something like "well, Israel was a Theocracy, after all, and we're not living in a Theocracy, therefore the Biblical examples of good government don't apply".  Besides fallacious reasoning, there are a number of problem with such a statement:

1. This reasoning is an implied form of dispensationalism.  The thinking goes that because most examples and exhortations to how a nation is to be governed are found in the Older Testament it no longer applies to Newer Testament Christians.
2. It assumes, categorically, that having God or a god rule a nation is but a choice among many options.
3. There is a notion that Israel's government was an improper combination of Church and State.
4. An improper understanding of things Spiritual.  It is said, "we are exiles in this world" and that therefore is to mean that the material world, with it's hardships, governments, and other heavy things are of no concern to the Christian.  It then follows that Christ is not Lord over all, but Lord only over our "hearts".

 Let's tackle each of these, with the following:

1. Christians must remember that the whole of Scripture is God-breathed and useful for every area of life (2 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 1:13-2:3); not only useful but to be applied to all areas of life.  A simple antidote to a dispensational outlook, is "if God says it, only God can unsays it".  This is a simple, God-fearing hermeneutic.
2. It is impossible to escape the notion that "religion" or faith, belief of some kind rules a nation.  It is either a belief in God that will inspire a nation's Laws, or a belief in man that will inspire laws.  This is inescapable.  
3. The fear (and it is a good fear) for a softening of the line between Church and State does not remove the responsibility of the Magistrate to kiss the ring of King Jesus (I Kings 1:30, 8-11, Isa 42:1-4, Mic 4:2, Heb 2:8, Eph 1:21, Mat 28:18) and govern by God's Law.  An perverted understanding of both Church and State lead us to tyranny (a.k.a the Modern West).  The rule of God's Law leads to freedom.  Israel was a not a theocracy in the sense that there were no distinctions between the magistrate (did Israel not have Kings and Priests) and the Church. 
4. If Reformation and Revival will happen in our lifetime, dualism will be the big pillar that must topple.  The etherialization of the Church has been her biggest shackle in the last 300 years.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, impedes the Great Commission more than this hyper-individualization, hyper-"spiritualization" of the Scriptures, the church and her mission.  In a Revival, everything ungodly must be converted - and that includes our government and culture institutions.  Ecstatic utterances and cry-baby prayers are not the signs of true Revival, but Lordship certainly is proof that the Lord is at work in the hearts of men.

Our governments, as every other institution must bow the knee to Christ.  The magistrate today, just like in Israel of Old, is required by God's Law to enforce justice and righteousness.  A "Christocracy" ought to be the goal of every Christian, in every nation.

Rendering to the Lord All Things

Ever hear an argument for a particular understanding of the Scriptures that was so intertwined up into itself that it was nearly impossible to understand how the argument started?  I heard such an argument on the christian life recently.  Before I get into the argument itself though, here is a little background. 

There is a writhing, current controversy in the Church today that creates what is called a "common realm" in reality and in this realm, the Scriptures don't provide or require guidance for life and godliness.  Some suggest that this common realm is the "earthly kingdom", while the Church and the Scriptures are among the "heavenly kingdom".  That is the one side, so then on the other side of the debate we have folks saying that there is no such common realm and even if there were a common realm, Christ and His Word lord over it.

Now, there are many variations to this idea and there are variations as to what exactly is in this realm (most would place our role in Government, politics, and other such matters).  To sum up the "conversation" I believe it is relatively safe to say that on the one side we have a radical (departing from orthodoxy and history) 2-Kingdom approach, and then on the other, we have the side that maintains that the Scriptures alone speak and have authority on such things (sometimes, referred to as "Theonomy" by it's opponents and "confessional" by is proponents).  One only has to think for a few minutes on this dichotomy to start to realize that the implications of the debate are absolutely huge and very difficult. 

I recently heard an argument from the passage Mark 12:13-17:

13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,1 but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him.

 from that passage, I heard that:

1. The Gospel brings people together - either for it or against it.  Loving the Gospel makes some strange allies and Hating the Gospel likewise makes for some really strong, but otherwise, strange partnerships.
2. This passage lays a foundation, a Christian view of politics and religion
3. We should be good citizens, even if you think the government is bad.  There was some good about Rome and there was some bad.  Even though Rome was bad, Jesus says "pay your taxes".  Rom 13, makes the same point.  Even though your government is bad in some ways, we should pay our taxes.  You are ethically obligated to pay your taxes no matter what.
4. Human government has legitimate authority.  God has instituted it.  Having government is a gift.  Government is a good thing, as a general category.  It is instituted by God and therefore should be respected by Man.  Chaos is bad. (I Tim 2).  We need to pray that they will uphold the law, bring order, punish wrong-doing, and live our life relatively free from their interference.  Christians should lead the way to show respect and honor to those in authority.
5. Allegiance to God and allegiance to your country are not inherently incompatible.  It is possible to honor Caesar and to honor God.  (I Peter 2) It seems that the normal state is one of compatible loyalties.  Are there times where civil disobedience is required - yes.
6. It is acceptable that there be some separation between religion and government.  It is acceptable that there be some separation between Church and State.  God and Government have "overlapping" but distinct spheres.  Government is always accountable to God but if we render to Caesar and to God different things, they must be different and distinct.  On the one hand, we can't strip Government from moral influence.  On the other hand, it seems that Jesus is saying here that government should not be ruled by all the laws of God.  As one author states, "Jesus was not a Theonomist".  D.A. Carson says that "everywhere up to this point, religion and state were intertwined.  This was true of course in ancient Israel, at least in theory - Israel was a Theocracy.  Similarly in the Pagan world the gods of the people were the gods of the state.  When the Romans took over some territory, the Romans did a "god swap".... but no where was there a state where it was divorced from all gods. ... what we could a secular state... where religion and government occupy separate spheres. on the face of it, this is what Jesus was advocating."  After all, Jesus says "My Kingdom is not of this world", and it won't be until the end of the age. [he is confusing himself here between the difference of will, is and ought].  Here is what one theologian says about living today - we are more like the Israelites living in babylon, then we are the Israelites living in the Promised Land.  [still confusing is and ought].  We are continually called strangers, pilgrims, etc in the NT.  Our position is not the Jews, but of exiles.  It helps us to know what to expect.  "Both of these spheres are ordained by God and under His Law, but they have different functions and operate according to different rules.  In their capacity as citizens of the spiritual kingdom, Christians insist of peace and refuse to bare arms in the name of His Kingdom.  In there capacity of citizens of the civil kingdom, they participate in the coercive work of the State.  As citizens of the Spiritual Kingdom, they have no patriotic allegiance to earthly kingdoms.  But as citizens of the earthly kingdom, patriotism is certainly possible.  As citizens of the Spiritual Kingdom, they can make all sorts of critiques of everything not Christ-like [paraphrased]  but as citizens of the earthly kingdom, they can acknowledge the benefits of all the benefits the State brings... seek common cause with non-christians on a host of issues and social projects.  As citizens of the spiritual kingdom they submit to the Scriptures, but as of the civil kingdom they can engage in genuine moral conversations with those of other faiths, with the universally accessible law of nature without making adherence to scripture a test for participation of cultural affairs.  As citizens of the spiritual kingdom, they can view social institutions like the State as temporal, destined to pass away.  But as citizens of the civil kingdom, they can have a keen interest in society, here and now.  "  This is crucial, and it remains to be seen if Islam can work in a Western Country.  There is nothing in the NT that tells us how to rule as the majority (taken from a P. Yancy quote).  Islam grew up as state and religion intertwined - it was always one.  The muslim view had a hard time with distinct spheres.  This is why there is rarely if ever freedom of religion in these countries.  It's because of this passage in Mark that Christians can accept the First Amendment - freedom of religion, for instance.  We can accept people worshiping other gods and worship in ways we don't approve.  Islam, on the other hand, doesn't have such a thing.  
7. God's people are not tied to any one nation.  You can be a part of a nation that doesn't worship, formally, the one true God.  True religion is not bound up in one country.  The Church is trans-national.  A government's legitimacy is not bound is not determined on whether is supports the worship of the one true God or even allows for it.  Jesus unhitches the requirement for governments to follow Jesus and for those being governed by those governments to have dual loyalty (37:36).  Christianity is not a Western Religion.  Christianity was born in regions of the World where people are crying out for freedom now and were these people are forced underground.  The center of gravity of Christianity is shifting away from the West. [this is spoken as a good thing].  The Church is international - you don't have to be an American to follow Christ.  You can be from any country and worship Jesus.
8. The State is not God.  Jesus says in this passage that we need to give God God's things and Caesar's, Caesar's things. Human government is run by humans, so it is full of sin.  The State gravitates towards more power, that the State has all the answers.  Jesus says respect Government, but the State is not ultimate.  The State does not have ultimate authority. 
9. We owe our ultimate allegiance to God.  The power of the State is good but limited.  Our allegiance is never ultimate.  We see so many examples of civil disobedience in the OT.  Verse 16 - the likeness - what are the things that are due Caesar:  honor, taxes, respect.  But what belongs to God?  You.  Your whole self.  Caesar gets the coins, God gets you.  God says to you - who's image do you bear?  God.  God gets you.  You are made in God's image, you owe your life, existence to God.  His face is on you.  You belong to Him.  You must ask yourself, what am I holding back from God?  Have you been putting off complete submission to Him?  Come to Christ and surrender the fight - render to God his things.  Give God yourself.

While I dissect this argument, I am assuming the author of it has chosen his words very carefully, and in doing so, has reveled some troubling beliefs that he has about God, His Word and His Work.  This is why it makes this so incredibly important to work out.  I am treading very carefully here - I care very deeply for and respect the author of these words and I hope everyone sees that I am very much for him and am very much interested in his personal walk and holiness.  As we all live in community with one another, I believe that we are called to sharpen each other, in the Lord.  I pray that this is the intent of this post.

So, I will break my argument down as I respond to each of the 9 points above. 

1. First point is spot on.  Especially if we understand the Gospel as the full counsel of God from Genesis to Revelation.  One cannot be neutral on the Word of God in anyway.
2. It is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion, to pull SO much from this passage.  The point is, mainly, that the Jews were trying to snare and ultimately murder Christ.  This point should not be over-shadowed by a discussion on politics.  They were trying to trick the Lord as to hasten His demise.  The Lord in turn was showing their hypocrisy in the utmost (because it showed their WILLING submission to Caesar already) and confounding them in their stupidity.  And, this interaction certainly did not stop the Jews from accusing him of not giving tribute to Caesar anyway (see Luke 23:2).
3. In general, I agree with this sentiment as well, as long as it is properly qualified.  No such qualification was given though.  We are never, never to pay anything, including taxes "no matter what".  Doing so, is simply idolatry.  If the author of this comment truly believed this, they would also take issue, to remain consistent, with the American War for Independence against Britain (just an example), as it was, among other things a war about unjust taxes.  Furthermore, such an unqualified statement would also require the Christian to disobey the First Commandment.
4. Again, agreed.  I would offer a question to help hone in on the discussion.  On what basis, or standard should we punish "wrong doers"?  This isn't an easy question for those who claim the existence of a "common realm".
5. Yes, this is correct if taken in the best possible light.  Christians do not honor Caesar and God in the same way, at the same level.  It is because we FIRST honor God that we also, to a lesser degree honor Caesar.  When Caesar refuses to honor God, in a public-facing way, then Christians have a duty to react to that.
6. Here's where we come to a large departure from Orthodoxy.  Hear me loud and clear:  it is entirely impossible to separate religion from ANY thing, any piece of knowledge, any work, any action, any thought - anything period.  External realities are manifested by inward beliefs.  The beliefs are religious to the core.  Christians are called to be Holy ("religious") in ALL they do.  There is not one piece of life, where Christ does not say "mine".  Christians should NEVER, NEVER be "neutral" on anything, nor can they be as it is impossible to act but not believe. 
   
   It is therefore, just as impossible to separate religion and government.  The Scriptures DO call for a separation between Institutions or Spheres, and it is precisely beacause the Scriptures say this that Christians are to uphold the Separation.  Period.  Not because we like it or because it "seems to work", but because it is commanded by our King to do so. 
   
   In this quote, Carson is so blinded by the god his government serves that he cannot see that his own country (the USA or Canada) is indeed bowing the knee to a god.  Are we really to believe that secular humanism isn't really a god, or a religion?  That our ideals of "personal choice" no matter who is murdered, is really devoid of a god of some kind?  This slight-of-hand appeal to the "neutral" has blinded so many in our pulpits today.
   
   Again, we see a picture of dualism and some kind of monstrous christian split-personality disorder.  If this line of reasoning were taken to it's own conclusion, we cannot blame the gas chamber operators for their role in the atrocities of mid-century Germany.  Because these operators were acting in the common realm, or the "civil kingdom", they should not be held accountable for their actions.  The Scriptures, our only rule for godliness, does not allow for this duplicitous approach to life.
   
   Finally, we cannot engage and must not engage in "moral dialog" without invoking the Scriptures (at some level).  It is only a matter of convenience that "most" religions say "thou shalt not murder" and it is only a matter of practicality for most.  Is that why Christians do not murder?  Because it's not practical? No, we do not do such things because it is offensive to God, and because he said not to do it.  A neutral, unbiblically founded conversation with Pagans is never an option for the Christian.  Proclaiming such a neutrality speaks volumes on one's own belief about God, their Savior and His Word.
7. How are we to judge a government good or a government bad?  Those on the extreme side of "common realm" theology, would say, well, we certainly aren't to make a judgement call.  But these same folks certainly don't live this way practically.  The alternative view to this is that God Himself has ordained civil magistrates, gives them authority and regulates what they do by His Word.  Without this understanding, the State IS God (see WCF 23:  God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.)
8. Agreed.
9. Agreed.  God gets everything.  When we give what is Lawful to Caesar we honour God.  When we give what is unLawful to Caesar, we dishonour God.  There is no middle ground, no neutral territory.

There is so much more to say on this topic and the debate will likely not be resolved anytime soon - it is all unfolding before us in this generation.  We should  continue to keep our eyes focused on the only stanrdard for holiness that we have - the very word of God.

"May the Lord raise up a generation that seeks His Worship in every area of life.  May we be that generation that kneels before the almighty in every hard way.  May we worship the one true King."