presses the desire of the majority; the minority has no right to impose its wishes upon the major ity; 2) the majority has more power and the chances to succeed are very slim. Additional notes regarding a few key Bible verses may be necessary. First, consider the words of Jesus in response to the question regarding the legality o f paying taxes to Caesar. Jesus requested to see the money used to pay taxes and they brought him a coin. Jesus said to them: “Whose likeness and description is this?” They said, “ Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore unto Cae sar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” The question was raised as if the Jews were still an independent nation. In reality, the situation was altogether different. They used Roman coins and tribute was paid in Roman, not in Jewish money. Christ gave them a visible demonstration of the de facto situation and forced them to a practical recognition of Caesar’s sway. Whereas they had only asked if it were permis sible to pay taxes. Christ stressed the necessity, at the same time reminding them o f their duty toward God. Just as the coin carried the imprint of the empire, so that which is divine is all of that which has the imprint o f God upon it. Man owes God nothing less than himself, since he is created in the image of God—be it ever so ruined. Christ does not speak o f the authority of the state in general, but only o f the ruler who had the de facto authority at that time. It was a practical answer to a definite, concrete question. The answer of Christ does not mention the limitation or the sovereignty of government. Two distinct spheres are mentioned. Church and state are separated and Protestant theologians have al ways taught that the state must uphold the external liberty o f the church and that in turn the church must teach genuine morality and infuse new spir itual life into the body politic. As to Paul’s famous statements in Romans 13, it has been suggested that the use made o f the passage to prove either the duty of passive obedi ence or the divine right o f kings is beside the point. The apostle was not thinking of such matters. He merely stated that the organization of human so ciety with distinctions o f rank is essential for the preservation of moral order. For this reason, no Christian is at liberty to revolt against this concept per se. The institution o f the state is o f God. Whether, in a specific sense, the true represen tative of the state is found in the administration or in the people, Paul does not enable us to say. Neither does the apostle say anything regarding the right o f insurrection. When he wrote the let ter to the Romans, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius had already been on the throne. Nero had not yet begun to react against the Christians and, gener ally speaking, the imperial authorities had pro
tected the apostle against violence, whether Jew ish or pagan. However, even this does not come into specific consideration. Paul’s discussion presup posed normal conditions. Law and its representa tives are o f God and as such entitled to honor and obedience on the part of Christians. Whether the “ governing authorities” are all de facto authorities or only those legitimately estab lished—whether by democratic process or by other means—is not discussed. Paul does not even discuss the necessity of the state or its utility, but simply recognizes that God is at work through the gov erning authorities. He does not define the different stages o f transition, from the non-existence o f the state, through the process o f becoming, to the final point of existence. Paul firmly declares that the purpose o f the state is the maintenance of right. Whether revolution becomes legitimate if and when the government becomes subversive o f moral order and opposed to the principles o f divine government is not discussed. Much is left to the enlightened Christian mind under the general influence of Christian truth. Throughout the discussion, it is taken for granted that the State will not act in violation of its own idea and identify itself with those who are evil. Since obedience is required because of God’s appointment, it cannot be demanded in matters contrary to God’s appointment (Acts 5:29). All along, the State is presented ideally and its failure to perform certain functions automatically would imply limits to absolute submission. The Bible does not furnish detailed answers to the complexities of the contemporary situation. Broad principles are expressed! The authority of government rests on divine authority. The purpose o f government should be the welfare of the citizens. In case of collision, we must obey God rather than man. Limitations o f the authority of government are inherent in these principles and the views of John Calvin and Timothy Dwight seem to express the biblical content adequately. Opposition to civil violence is part of Christian duty, according to Dr. Dwight. And, riots and lawlessness — whatever the reason — traditionally have been condemned by the church, regardless o f the form of government, and most certainly in a democracy. Biblical teach ing does not furnish a justification for riots in the streets. **And his gifts were that some should be . . . pastors . . . teachers . . . tor the worh of ministry9 for building up the body of Christ . . .** (Ephesians 4 :1 1 , 1 2 .)
Reprinted from R io ts in S treets . Used with permission of Tyndale House Publishers.
MARCH, 1969
17
Made with FlippingBook Online document