"I am puzzled about which Bible

people are reading when they suggest

that religion and politics don't mix."

Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Wineskins Contributor・03/04/19

A dear brother in Christ from one of our nation'ssouthern states recently wrote me the following, "Al, I am active in theRepublican Party. Many years ago I was criticized (though not by name) in asermon because I spent time in political activity, rather than spending all mytime in church related activities. The preacher apparently believed, as DavidLipscomb did, that Christians should not even vote. The attitude toward politicalinvolvement is now changing in this area, but most Christians around here stilldon't take much interest in politics." I heard a preacher declare once,"I choose not to get involved in secular politics because there is enoughpolitics in the church to last me a lifetime!" Sadly, the negative aspectsof what we term "politics" can indeed be found among the people ofGod as well.

Let me preface my thoughts in this article aboutChristians becoming involved in secular politics by saying a few words aboutthe whole "separation of church and state" issue that we have allheard so much about in recent years, and about which there is tremendousconfusion based on some rather popular misinformation. As often as one hearsthis phrase one would almost think it was an integral part of our U.S. Constitution.It is not.The FirstAmendment simply states, "Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercisethereof." The words "church," "state," and"separation" do not even occur in this statement. The emphasis ofthis solemn declaration was an assurance to the people that their governmentwould not seek to establish a national religion or dictate to the citizens theparameters of their worshipful expression. It simply declared the federalgovernment would notseek to impose its own will upon the people with regard to any religion.

This notion of a "wall of separation"between church and state actually comes from an exchange of letters betweenThomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association of the state of Connecticut. OnOctober 7, 1801, the Baptists wrote Jefferson of their concerns regarding the First Amendment.They felt their "free exercise of religion," as viewed by the federalgovernment and as expressed in this amendment, was being presented more as"a favor granted" than as "an inalienable right." Thus, iftheir freedom of religion and religious expression was government-given, ratherthan God-given,what assurance was there that this government would never change its mind andrevoke that freedom?!

Jefferson responded to their letter of concern onJanuary 1, 1802, and assured them that a protective wall separated the churchfrom the state, thus assuring their freedom of religion and religiousexpression. He wrote, in part, "I contemplate with solemn reverence thatact of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof,' thus buildinga wall of separation between Church and State." Jeffersonhad chosen those words carefully, actually seeking to establish some commonground with the Baptists (of which he was not a member) by borrowing theexpression from Roger Williams, one of the leading preachers among theBaptists. Williams had previously spoken emphatically of "the hedge orwall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of theworld." Jefferson, therefore, chose to apply this concept of a protective"hedge or wall of separation" between the church and the worldto the church and the state as well.

The U.S. Supreme Court echoed these words in 1947in the case of Everson v. Board of Education. They wrote, "TheFirst Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must bekept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."This was perceived to be strictly one-directional. In other words, asused by the Baptists, the church was free to influence the world about themwith their religious values, however the world was not to be permitted to enterthe church and do likewise. The same one-directional concept was perceivedbetween church and state. The principles and ethics of Christianity wouldcertainly be welcomed as positive influences upon government, however theintrusion of government into the church would not be welcomed.

Therefore, in the early, formative years of ourgreat nation's history, there was no concerted effort to keep the church (or,more accurately, the influence of Christian principles) out of the affairs ofstate, but only an assurance that the state would not meddle with the affairsof the church. Indeed, in these early years, our founding fathers, and thegovernment itself, were greatly affected by the teachings of the Christianfaith. In the year 1799, Dr. Jedediah Morse made this rather insightfulobservation about the intimate, and necessary, relationship between the two:"In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished inany nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or theneglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of thatnation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom. ... Whenever the pillarsof Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms ofgovernment, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Any nation which separates itself from thechurch, or the influence of Christian principles, is a nation destined forruin, and when Christians seek to separate themselves from responsibleinvolvement in the affairs of their nation, they, in my opinion, shirk theirresponsibility to be a leavening force for good, and in their lack ofinvolvement actually contribute to the inevitable decline of their nation. Inother words, it is my firm conviction that we, the people of God, mustbe active participants in every aspect of the society in which we live. How canwe ever truly expect to effect responsible change if we isolateourselves from the world about us? The Lord never prayed for His people to betaken out ofthe world, but that through their godly influence and example they might transform theworld about them. That can only be done by those men and women willing to getout of their plush church buildings and into their communities. Yeast doesn'twork as long as it is still in the package; it must be mixed in with the doughbefore change occurs. The most important thing we as Christians can do toreturn our nation to a responsible course, and to effect responsible reform, isto truly start being the light, salt and leavening force forpositive change that we are called by our God to be. That can't be done if weare not willing to actively participate and involve ourselves in seeking toennoble every aspect of life within our communities, and within our society atlarge.

In a position paper released by the Center for BiblicalBioethics it was declared that "a society cannot operate longin a moral vacuum. When people of good conscience fail to influence societywith their values, then other influences will fill the gap. This has happenedin America. In the past one hundred years, most fundamental Christians haveleft the political arena, considering it 'worldly' and outside the legitimaterealm of Christian influence." The result of this failure by an increasingnumber of disciples of Christ is that our nation is spiraling ever downwardaway from God, and that can only result, as history proves, in its ultimatedemise. It is the conclusion of this position paper that "Christians need to be involved in the politicalprocess in order to have a positive effect on the future of our communities andour nation. It is poor citizenship and very poor Christian stewardship topermit this great nation to plunge on toward destruction by default."William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, stated in the early 1700's, "Letmen be good, and the government cannot be bad." That goodness, however,must permeateevery corner of government, not be separated from it.

What does Scripture have to say about all of this?Some attempt to make much of the fact that nowhere in the NT writings areChristians ever urged to actively participate in politics, or to seek publicoffice. The assumptionsome men draw from this fact is that such silence is thereby prohibitive.However, our integrity to Scripture, and to the principles of biblical interpretation,demand that we also acknowledge as fact that nowhere in the NT writings is suchinvolvement and participation condemned or discouraged. Thus, to assume that such silence isnecessarily prohibitive, is probably to assume far more than is exegeticallywarranted. Indeed, there is evidence that Christians should take aninterest in ennobling the societies in which they live!

Paul's view of government was largely positive innature, although, like any of us, he could certainly have found many aspects ofit with which he would have taken exception. He wrote to the Roman brethrenthat the governing authorities are God-ordained. "There is no authorityexcept from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Romans 13:1).He regarded such governing authorities as being "a minister of God"(vs. 4) to accomplish His purpose. Indeed, Paul regarded the rulers (whetherthese rulers themselves realized it or not) as "servants of God,"devoting themselves to the carrying out of His purposes in society (vs. 6)."Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whomcustom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor" (vs. 7). Paul urged thechurch to prayfor those in government, "in order that we may lead a tranquil and quietlife in all godliness and dignity" (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

Some see justification for "separation of churchand state" in the response of Jesus to the Pharisees and Herodians whosought to trap Him in a question regarding whether one should pay the poll-taxto Caesar (Mark 12:13-17). The Lord said, "Render to Caesar the thingsthat are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Jesus was indeedmaking a distinction between secular and spiritual concerns, but He was noturging our involvement in one to the total exclusion of our involvement in theother. He was, rather, advocating responsible involvement in botharenas. Yes, we canand should render unto Caesar, but we do so as godly menand women, impacting the realm of Caesar for its ultimate good, rather thanallowing the realm of Caesar to impact us for evil. The passage does not saywhat some have attempted to make it say. Jesus is not promoting separation of"church and state," but rather responsible, godly involvement in both.

One of the most compelling passages with regardto involvement of Christians in the political process, however, is without adoubt Romans 16:23. Here Paul is sending greetings to and conveying greetingsfrom various Christian men and women. "Gaius, host to me and tothe whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you,and Quartus, a brother." The NIV translates the passage this way:"Erastus, who is the city's director of public works..."The Greek word used is "oikonomos,"which, when used politically, referred to a "manager, steward,treasurer." Thus, Erastus was an official of the city of Corinth (fromwhich this powerful epistle to the Romans was written in late February or earlyMarch of 58 A.D., near the end of Paul's third missionary journey). Greekscholars differ as to the exact position held by Erastus. "Denney definesErastus' position as city treasurer; Vincent, probably the administrator of thecity lands; Robertson, the city manager" [Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Wuest'sWord Studies from the Greek New Testament, vol. 1, "Romans," p. 265].David Lipscomb, who, as previously noted, was greatly opposed to Christiansinvolving themselves in the affairs of state, suggested Erastus was simply the churchtreasurer, and not the city treasurer [A Commentary onRomans, p. 279]. This, in my view, is little more than textualmanipulation and misrepresentation for the purpose of trying to validate anuntenable theory. By the way, this man mentioned in Romans 16:23 is "not to beidentified with the Erastus of Acts 19:22 and 2 Timothy 4:20" [The PulpitCommentary, vol. 18, "Romans," p. 457].

"Erastus was the treasurer of the city ofCorinth and attended to its affairs of property. He was a person of consequencein the city" [R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistleto the Romans, p. 925]. He was "a notable figure because of hispublic office" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 10, p.169]. "He may well have been a high-ranking and influential governmentleader – the city treasurer. If so, he would have political power, prestige, andprobably some wealth" [Holman Bible Dictionary, p. 431]. It justso happens that scholars know for a fact, from archaeological discoveries inCorinth, that during this very time there was indeed a city official namedErastus. "A paving block preserves an inscription, stating that thepavement was laid at the expense of Erastus," and it states he was the "Commissionerof Public Works" [Oscar Broneer, The Biblical Archaeologist,December, 1951].From Romans 16:23, therefore, we know that Paul sendsgreetings to the saints in Rome from a city official in Corinth who holds anelected office, one invested with great responsibility and authority. Erastusis a Christian. Paul nowhere condemns his service to the city of Corinth, nordoes Paul condemn his participation in the political affairs of his community.It is not even suggested he should abandon that involvement. Indeed, one mayeven imagine Paul is somewhat pleased that a Christian is in that position ofresponsibility, for, after all, Paul makes a point of mentioning (and notdisapprovingly) the political position of Erastus. And after all, isn't it farbetter to have a Christian in such a position than a non-Christian? If not, whynot?! Thus, to the individual whose comments I shared at the beginning of thisarticle I would simply say, "Continue involving yourself in the politicalprocess of our land ... and do so as a devoted disciple of Jesus Christ. Letyour light shine. Be a leavening force for good. Brother, we need more likeyou."