Judge Rocky Cross in Ohio has very strict rules for his courtroom. No hats allowed. No wearing of shorts. And absolutely no cell phones. All of that goes for the attorneys, the defendants, the witnesses, the visitors in the courtroom, and even the court clerk. All violators of any of these rules are held in contempt of court and fined.
So, in 2015 when a cell phone rang during court proceedings there was dead silence. It turned out that it was Judge Cross’s own phone. He, being a truly honorable judge, immediately stopped the proceedings, held himself in contempt of court, and fined himself the usual $25. He later explained that he thought he had left is phone in his office, but he accidentally had it on him. Ultimately, he believed that what was expected of everyone else should be expected of him – no exceptions. (https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/weird/ohio-judge-holds-himself-in-contempt-of-court)
Perhaps he is a truly honorable judge. And perhaps his strict policy was so strict that when he accidentally violated it the only face-saving thing to do was to fine himself. Whatever was the case, it opens us to understand the passage from Hebrews when it says that Jesus was not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but, it says, “we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus’ humanity – one with us – allows him to truly sympathize with our weaknesses.
Let’s make sure we are clear here. Jesus was never literally the high priest in Judaism. But Hebrews uses the concept of the high priest to describe Jesus’ role in our lives; and in our salvation.
It is worth spending some time looking at the role of the high priest. The high priest was the leader of the religion. Perhaps he was somewhat akin to the Catholic pope in Christianity, but don’t stretch those connections too far. Originally, only descendants of Moses’ brother Aaron could be high priests.
The high priest oversaw the operation of the temple. The first thing he would do every day is to offer a holy bread offering of twelve loaves. Six of those loaves would be burnt upon the altar in the morning and the other six would be burnt in the afternoon. It is always important to remember that the main altar for sacrifice was not inside the temple building itself. The fire and smoke would have been impossible. The altar just outside the front door of the temple on a huge platform.
The high priest oversaw all of the sacrifices the people would offer. He would make prayers to God on behalf of them. He was the chief interceder on the people’s behalf before God.
The high priest was the custodian of the religious laws. He was responsible for their correct interpretation and application. He was also a supreme judge of sorts – the highest court of appeal in religious matters.
Kings would sometimes consult with the high priest and ask the priest to appeal to God, and to get God’s feedback on political and military action.
The high priest was a symbol of purity. He had to live by somewhat different purity laws than the general population and always be in a higher state of purity.
Perhaps the most dramatic thing about the high priest is what he would do on the holiday of Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement. It is the highest holy day in Judaism and the one where right relationship with God was restored. On that day, and only that day, the high priest would enter into the Holy of Holies in the temple.
Picture a bullseye to understand Jewish levels of holiness, with each ring representing a higher level. The world was one ring. The Jewish territory was a ring within that. Jerusalem was ring within Jewish territory. Then we get to the courtyards around the Jerusalem temple. In those courtyards and near the temple building was the large altar for burnt offerings and a gigantic basin for washing. Finally, there was the temple building itself. You’d go up steps to the temple platform. Two large pillars held a high porch roof. Then you’d be in the sanctuary of the temple. Almost no Jewish citizen ever actually entered the temple proper. Only high officials. The sanctuary was almost the highest level of holiness. It contained ten lampstands, a golden table for the twelve loaves of the daily bread offering, and a small incense altar.
And then, at one end of the temple, was the Holy of Holies. Separated by a wall with a curtain over the doorway, was the holiest place in the world for Jews. While they knew God was everywhere, God’s presence in the Holy of Holies was its strongest and purest.
What was in the Holy of Holies is somewhat unclear in Jesus’ day. In early days it contained the Ark of the Covenant which had Israel’s most holy relics inside it. But the ark was almost certainly destroyed by the Babylonians, 500 years before Jesus. Whatever was in there in Jesus’ day, only the high priest ever saw it. When he went in to this strongest place of God’s presence his purpose was to appeal to God for the forgiveness of the sins of the people.
The author of Hebrews is drawing on all of this as he calls Jesus our high priest. Jesus is the holy one. Jesus appeals to the Father on our behalf for our forgiveness. Jesus is the head of our faith. He is the custodian of our morals. He is the interpreter of scripture. He is in the holiest of places for our benefit.
There is a step by step sequence to our faith that is important for Hebrews, although we tend to minimize it. It has to do with Ascension Day.
Jesus’ birth is at Christmas. That begins the Incarnation, where God takes on human form and experiences what it is to be like us.
Good Friday is when Jesus dies on our behalf, as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. You could call it our Yom Kippur, or Day of Atonement.
Easter is Jesus’ triumph over death.
And then there is the last and ultimate holiday in this salvation sequence, Ascension Day. Ascension Day is when Jesus ascends into heaven to become the high priest on our behalf in the Holy of Holies before God.
Now Ascension Day has scientific problems. How can Jesus’ body physically ascend and then head into some actual physical place. But if you read the Ascension Day texts in the Bible you realize it never actually says any of that. All they want to do is make us realize Jesus’ presence before the Father on our behalf.
Hebrews suggests that Jesus is permanently – even at this moment – before the Father making appeals on our behalf, praying for us, advocating for us, and appealing to God’s grace for our forgiveness.
Jesus knows what it is to be human. He is not a judge who sits above us and wouldn’t hold himself in contempt of court because of a cell phone. Hebrews tells us Jesus sympathizes with our weaknesses. He knows what it is to be tempted. Jesus is not to be feared. He is our friend, our supporter, our advocate, and our ally. He speaks before the Father on our behalf. And his word carries great weight.
All of this is good news. Hebrews wants us to see God as on our side, wanting us to succeed, cheering us on in life. But, as always, Hebrews isn’t going to be flippant. Jesus’ work on our behalf is not to be exploited. Our passage today started with the stark warning that God knows all and sees all. “The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
So, we should not turn down or scorn the work God has done on our behalf. We should not be flippant. God is not mocked. Grace is not to be exploited.
We are to live in awe of what Jesus has done for us. We are to build our lives around it. We are to realize that it is a joyful life, but not an immoral, over-indulgent, hedonistic, careless, gluttonous, or flippant one. God sees and knows.
Righteous living is rooted in celebrating Jesus’ life and love for us. All good things flow from there.
Tuesday, July 21, 2026
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
July 12, 2026 Faithful Today for Tomorrow Hebrews 3:7 – 4:11
Christianity has long used Jews as scapegoats. This is, of course, wrong on many levels. Things did not start off well as Christianity and Judaism split ways very early on in the beginning of Christianity. There was persecution of Christians by Jews. But then as Christianity spread like wildfire the tables were turned. This has led to all sorts of killings and destruction. Our scriptures, written in the time of those early persecutions, have, unfortunately, become enduring teachings that make things continue.
Christian scriptures generally call us to have a positive view of Judaism. And, as our text in Hebrews does today, calls us to learn from Judaism’s own self-criticism.
I am not a scholar of all the world’s cultures and literature, but from what I do know, the ancient Jews are the only ones who have a pretty negative self-understanding. Most cultures minimize the things that make them look bad, and overexaggerate the things that make them look good. But the ancient Jews were willing to be brutally honest with themselves, and/or they knew something about human nature that the rest don’t.
You’ve heard and maybe know well the stories of the origin of the Jewish people. The book of Genesis concludes with Joseph moving his eleven brothers and his father to Egypt to escape the severe famine. Over time their population grows to be mighty, but they are enslaved by the Egyptians. God hears their cries of distress.
The book of Exodus opens with the birth of Moses. Moses is not a good person and there is nothing about his faith that would make him stand out. Yet God chooses him to free the people and lead them to the Promised Land. After the ten plagues the Egyptians finally set them free. They leave rejoicing, but not for long. They almost immediately begin grumbling against Moses and God. They say they want to go back. God is patient with them, miraculously protecting them from their enemies and providing them with all their needs. Yet they grumble. They are quickly led to the Promised Land and invited to enter. Yet they become scared and do not trust God. God’s patience wears thin and condemns them to 40 years in the wilderness. God reasons that perhaps the next generation will be more faithful.
But they weren’t.
They do eventually come to the Promised Land, but they do not do as God asks. The Old Testament goes on to describe generations of faithless people who fail to do what God asks. God tries everything from great kindness to severe punishment and nothing works. Yet God remains faithful to them.
Yes, the ancient Jews had no great moral vision of themselves. The only thing that they knew was that God was good, long-suffering, and faithful to them. In that rested their hope.
We read part of that story in our passage from Hebrews for today. The author warns his Christian readers that they aren’t so different from the Jews. They too are apt to go astray and be disobedient.
If you go through those verses from Hebrews with a fine-tooth comb you’re going to find some logical gaps and inconsistencies. We have to remember that Hebrews is a sermon, not a theological treatise. It skips through some details for brevity sake. But we still get the idea. Two Old Testament themes are pulled together. One is the 40 year wilderness journey. The other is the creation account from Genesis 1. There God creates in six days and rests on the seventh.
Hebrews merges the idea of creation being completed by the seventh day and God resting, with the 40 year wilderness journey completed by entering the Promised Land, …and there is still a promised day of rest ahead. That promised day of rest is the time when God brings the creation to its ultimate conclusion. Then the time of the labor of the universe is over.
It is an interesting combination of thoughts – that we should see our lives as like the forty-year journey in the wilderness, and we will ultimately rest when we reach the promised fulfillment of creation.
So how are we going to act in the wilderness journey of life? Will we be like the Israelites: grumbling, unfaithful, and wanting to go back; or will we be a new people bound and committed in faith to God through the love of Jesus? Obviously we want to be part of that new people! But we face the same challenges they did.
It could be said that our society has gone off the rails in many ways. We could make long lists and find many things to blame. I believe Hebrews gets at the core of what it all is. This is one of the many blessings of Hebrews and its strongly Jewish roots, which do not shy away from the dark and problematic side of humanity.
Drawing from the people’s unfaithfulness in the wilderness Hebrews says, “Take care, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” It’s an easy statement, and it pretty much sums up the root of our society’s ills. Let me shift to today’s language using the work of Rebecca McLaughlin in her book How Church Could (Literally) Save Your Life. She says:
[Imagine a prescription…] “that if taken at least weekly – could elongate your life expectancy by seven years, significantly increase your change of happiness, and substantially reduce the likelihood you’ll suffer from depression.
“Thinking this is too good to be true, you check for side effects. They’re listed as a greater sense of meaning, greater likelihood of volunteering, and more generosity toward those in need. Once again, you’re skeptical. This must be a scam. You turn to the back cover to see where this information comes from. There you find this medication has been extensively researched by none other than the Harvard School of Public Health. Would you take the pills?”
As the title of her book suggests, that prescription is church participation – or specifically weekly worship attendance and participation in a faith community. McLaughlin cites several 2016 and newer publications by Harvard that pretty conclusively show that the happiest, emotionally most stable, and most fulfilled people in our society are those who regularly participate in religion. It is not exclusive to Christianity. Judaism shows the same effect. The results of Islam and others haven’t been studied in enough detail yet.
This is surprising, especially coming from Harvard. A year ago in the political theology class I took we had a lecture by a faculty member of the Harvard Divinity School. She was an atheist. It says a lot about Harvard’s Divinity School - founded by Puritans to promote Christianity - that they now hire atheists to teach religion.
McLaughin’s writings points out the very same thing that Hebrews points out. Before you can get a benefit from church you have to accept what the church is based upon. The church is not based on people being morally superior or having perfect actions or being somehow righteous. The church is based on the truth that all humans are sinners in need of God’s grace. I’ve said many times from this pulpit that unless you recognize you’re a sinner in need of God’s grace then you’ll get nothing from me and nothing from a worship service. The sign over the door that you walked through to get into the sanctuary says “Sinners Only. This is a space of grace.”
Hebrews knows it is our human nature to want to fall away from the living God. Our society today teaches that you can fulfill yourself. That you should not bother with religion because it will just depress or oppress you. That by determining your own unique path through life you will be free and happy. And all of it is a lie. Harvard has proven it.
What is the root of our society’s ills? It is our refusal to accept the idea of sinfulness. We do not want to accept that we are broken at our core. God and God alone can fix that. So we will drift away from God, rejecting the only real place that, as Harvard shows, can actually fulfill us. And thus as Hebrews warns, people never reach the Promised Land, the ultimate rest and fulfillment.
Our job is to stay faithful to the journey God has before us. It isn’t always an easy journey, but nothing really worth having is easy. Life, then, is the journey to the promised land of ultimate rest and peace.
And if we dare to do it – of course Jesus told us to do it – we share the good news with others. Even the unpopular but true news that regular participation in church really does make life measurably better.
Christian scriptures generally call us to have a positive view of Judaism. And, as our text in Hebrews does today, calls us to learn from Judaism’s own self-criticism.
I am not a scholar of all the world’s cultures and literature, but from what I do know, the ancient Jews are the only ones who have a pretty negative self-understanding. Most cultures minimize the things that make them look bad, and overexaggerate the things that make them look good. But the ancient Jews were willing to be brutally honest with themselves, and/or they knew something about human nature that the rest don’t.
You’ve heard and maybe know well the stories of the origin of the Jewish people. The book of Genesis concludes with Joseph moving his eleven brothers and his father to Egypt to escape the severe famine. Over time their population grows to be mighty, but they are enslaved by the Egyptians. God hears their cries of distress.
The book of Exodus opens with the birth of Moses. Moses is not a good person and there is nothing about his faith that would make him stand out. Yet God chooses him to free the people and lead them to the Promised Land. After the ten plagues the Egyptians finally set them free. They leave rejoicing, but not for long. They almost immediately begin grumbling against Moses and God. They say they want to go back. God is patient with them, miraculously protecting them from their enemies and providing them with all their needs. Yet they grumble. They are quickly led to the Promised Land and invited to enter. Yet they become scared and do not trust God. God’s patience wears thin and condemns them to 40 years in the wilderness. God reasons that perhaps the next generation will be more faithful.
But they weren’t.
They do eventually come to the Promised Land, but they do not do as God asks. The Old Testament goes on to describe generations of faithless people who fail to do what God asks. God tries everything from great kindness to severe punishment and nothing works. Yet God remains faithful to them.
Yes, the ancient Jews had no great moral vision of themselves. The only thing that they knew was that God was good, long-suffering, and faithful to them. In that rested their hope.
We read part of that story in our passage from Hebrews for today. The author warns his Christian readers that they aren’t so different from the Jews. They too are apt to go astray and be disobedient.
If you go through those verses from Hebrews with a fine-tooth comb you’re going to find some logical gaps and inconsistencies. We have to remember that Hebrews is a sermon, not a theological treatise. It skips through some details for brevity sake. But we still get the idea. Two Old Testament themes are pulled together. One is the 40 year wilderness journey. The other is the creation account from Genesis 1. There God creates in six days and rests on the seventh.
Hebrews merges the idea of creation being completed by the seventh day and God resting, with the 40 year wilderness journey completed by entering the Promised Land, …and there is still a promised day of rest ahead. That promised day of rest is the time when God brings the creation to its ultimate conclusion. Then the time of the labor of the universe is over.
It is an interesting combination of thoughts – that we should see our lives as like the forty-year journey in the wilderness, and we will ultimately rest when we reach the promised fulfillment of creation.
So how are we going to act in the wilderness journey of life? Will we be like the Israelites: grumbling, unfaithful, and wanting to go back; or will we be a new people bound and committed in faith to God through the love of Jesus? Obviously we want to be part of that new people! But we face the same challenges they did.
It could be said that our society has gone off the rails in many ways. We could make long lists and find many things to blame. I believe Hebrews gets at the core of what it all is. This is one of the many blessings of Hebrews and its strongly Jewish roots, which do not shy away from the dark and problematic side of humanity.
Drawing from the people’s unfaithfulness in the wilderness Hebrews says, “Take care, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” It’s an easy statement, and it pretty much sums up the root of our society’s ills. Let me shift to today’s language using the work of Rebecca McLaughlin in her book How Church Could (Literally) Save Your Life. She says:
[Imagine a prescription…] “that if taken at least weekly – could elongate your life expectancy by seven years, significantly increase your change of happiness, and substantially reduce the likelihood you’ll suffer from depression.
“Thinking this is too good to be true, you check for side effects. They’re listed as a greater sense of meaning, greater likelihood of volunteering, and more generosity toward those in need. Once again, you’re skeptical. This must be a scam. You turn to the back cover to see where this information comes from. There you find this medication has been extensively researched by none other than the Harvard School of Public Health. Would you take the pills?”
As the title of her book suggests, that prescription is church participation – or specifically weekly worship attendance and participation in a faith community. McLaughlin cites several 2016 and newer publications by Harvard that pretty conclusively show that the happiest, emotionally most stable, and most fulfilled people in our society are those who regularly participate in religion. It is not exclusive to Christianity. Judaism shows the same effect. The results of Islam and others haven’t been studied in enough detail yet.
This is surprising, especially coming from Harvard. A year ago in the political theology class I took we had a lecture by a faculty member of the Harvard Divinity School. She was an atheist. It says a lot about Harvard’s Divinity School - founded by Puritans to promote Christianity - that they now hire atheists to teach religion.
McLaughin’s writings points out the very same thing that Hebrews points out. Before you can get a benefit from church you have to accept what the church is based upon. The church is not based on people being morally superior or having perfect actions or being somehow righteous. The church is based on the truth that all humans are sinners in need of God’s grace. I’ve said many times from this pulpit that unless you recognize you’re a sinner in need of God’s grace then you’ll get nothing from me and nothing from a worship service. The sign over the door that you walked through to get into the sanctuary says “Sinners Only. This is a space of grace.”
Hebrews knows it is our human nature to want to fall away from the living God. Our society today teaches that you can fulfill yourself. That you should not bother with religion because it will just depress or oppress you. That by determining your own unique path through life you will be free and happy. And all of it is a lie. Harvard has proven it.
What is the root of our society’s ills? It is our refusal to accept the idea of sinfulness. We do not want to accept that we are broken at our core. God and God alone can fix that. So we will drift away from God, rejecting the only real place that, as Harvard shows, can actually fulfill us. And thus as Hebrews warns, people never reach the Promised Land, the ultimate rest and fulfillment.
Our job is to stay faithful to the journey God has before us. It isn’t always an easy journey, but nothing really worth having is easy. Life, then, is the journey to the promised land of ultimate rest and peace.
And if we dare to do it – of course Jesus told us to do it – we share the good news with others. Even the unpopular but true news that regular participation in church really does make life measurably better.
Monday, July 6, 2026
July 5, 2026 God and Government Romans 13:1-10
For the July/August newsletter I wrote my article about whether America is a Christian nation or not. The answer is complicated. You could say yes or no depending on what parts of the truth you choose to emphasize and what parts you suppress. What is undeniably true is that the nation is founded on principles of Protestant Christianity as they came to shape what is called the Enlightenment Era. Central to those protestant principles are the thoughts of John Calvin. You’ll remember that Calvin’s thoughts were central to the Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Church, Congregational Churches, and branches of Methodism and Anglicanism. Take away Calvin’s theology and America as we know it does not exist.
All of this led me to wonder what a nation built on Martin Luther’s thoughts would be like. To be fair, we have to note that both Luther and Calvin lived centuries before the founding of the United States. Calvin could not have foreseen the way his thoughts would be applied. He may or may not have approved. It is always wrong to ask a historical figure with a different world view how they would have answered today’s issues. Nevertheless, even though we cannot ask Martin Luther his thoughts on American democracy today, if we apply histhoughts to government in his day we can realize something very important about our lives today.
You may remember the German Peasants war in 1524-1525. (Okay, you probably don’t.) Many peasants, inspired by some of the principles of the Reformation, revolted against their leaders – who were kings and princes. Luther took the side of the monarchs and wrote that the peasants should be subdued. As many as 100,000 of the 300,000 peasants who participated were killed. Luther did not trust the masses. What did they know about science, law, and theology? How could you trust people whose whims changed with the seasons? Luther cited scripture like Romans 13 to make his point. You’ll remember that we read, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed.”
Luther firmly believed that the government was by God’s choosing. That included cruel, abusive, and unjust governments. Remember, St. Paul’s letter to Rome occurred during Roman time. Rome’s government was hardly ideal. It oppressed, exploited, and killed numerous people. It was ultimately responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion! But Paul said it was God’s authority. Therefore, it must be obeyed.
A look at early Christian writings shows that the Christians prayed for their government and leaders, even as those leaders had them killed.
Luther’s own thoughts came back in the 20th century with horrible consequences. The Nazis in Germany cited Luther to support that they were put in place by God and that their actions were carrying out God’s will. Clearly that is way beyond what Luther intended. But the fact remains Luther trusted the educated and established leaders. He did not trust the general population.
For Luther, the point of government was to keep evil in check. It did so by laws, punishments, and wars when necessary. With evil in check, the Church could then spread the gospel. It was a fine idea by Luther, and it could be said to have worked in his time.
But then contrast that with these bold words in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
“…from the consent of the governed.” That’s definitely a departure from what any of the biblical authors intended. To them the power of government, even bad government, came from God; not from the population.
The Declaration of Independence has an immensely optimistic view of the world. It fits with the Age of Enlightenment, that with education and freedom you can trust people to know what is right and to do it.
But can you? And did the founders really believe it?
If you know your American history at all you know that we did not immediately go from the Declaration of Independence to the constitution that we have today. Our first centralized government was approved on November 15, 1777. It was called Articles of Confederation. While it is to be credited with having been capable of getting the infant nation through its revolutionary war, it wasn’t an effective form of government. The current constitution went into effect on September 17, 1787. You’ll remember that the only part of the federal government that the general population of the United States was originally allowed to choose directly was the House of Representatives. Senators were not chosen by the general public but by each state’s legislature. The president was chosen by the electoral college, which, like senators, was also chosen by the state legislators.
And who all actually had the right to vote? Again, this was determined by the state legislatures. It was a patchwork of rights that varied from state to state. Voter eligibility was determined by race, gender, wealth, land ownership, religion, and whether or not you paid your taxes. You might be an eligible voter at one time but not sometime later or in a different state.
There are many such examples of this. Pennsylvania serves as an interesting case. In the early 1800s wealthy black men had the right to vote. Poor white men did not. Then in 1838 Pennsylvania changed its constitution to remove wealth barriers to voting but it added race barriers. Thus, poor white men got the right to vote and wealthy black men lost it.
As far as I know, all of the oldest states have a complicated messy patchwork of who could vote and who could not. We may look back on it today and be offended. But note this, despite the Declaration of Independence saying that government derives its just right to govern by the consent of the governed, the founders didn’t really believe that. Like Martin Luther, they didn’t trust the common masses to make decisions about government.
These days many people may throw condemnations at them like: racist, sexist, ignorant, greedy, fearful, etc. Undeniably there is a measure of truth to those condemnations. But let’s not forget that there is wisdom in their thoughts as well. It is more likely that a reasonably well-to-do landholder is conscientious, dependable, hard-working, well-informed, and disciplined, than a homeless drug addict.
We may say that we’re all for equal voting rights, but how would we feel if government ran on the perspective of homeless drug addicts? No, we want our leadership to come from the perspective of education, discipline, and long-term critical thinking.
Given the warped logic, partial truths, and many downright lies I find on social media platforms, I understand why Martin Luther and why the founders of this nation didn’t trust the common masses to know how to rule effectively.
If, as Romans 13 says, we accept that government authority is instituted by God, and if we believe that we the ordinary people of a nation have the just right to the creation of that government, then we have taken upon ourselves an enormous divine responsibility. We have taken upon ourselves the rights of: life, justice, morality, war, economics, community development, technological innovation, and environmental protection.
We like to talk about the blessings of freedom and we consider it a basic human right to democratic rule. That may be good. But we should be terrified by the amount of responsibility such rights infer upon us.
It is astonishing that the American experiment of putting enlightenment era ideals of self-rule into a government system has actually worked for 250 years. Though the nation has myriads of problems, the remarkable experiment is proving to be robust.
But if it is going to flourish and embody the Christian ideals of Romans 13 then the work is never done. If you don’t have the right to determine your government then you can always shift the blame. But if you do have the right to determine your government then it is necessary for a society to put at the top of its virtue list: discipline, conscientiousness, humility, moderation, self-sacrifice, hard work, and trust in God. These are, in short, the virtues John Calvin thought should rise up in faithful Christians.
It is a long and difficult list, but it is the moral requirement of any people who desire to faithfully rule themselves. It’s never been done perfectly, but hopefully it has been done well enough. Ultimately, we Christians believe that the purpose of the government is to keep evil in check so that the gospel may be spread. Regardless of the form it takes, that is its purpose. It is supposed to support the mission of the gospel. May God forgive us when we inevitably fall short, and may God’s gracious providence continue to be with us.
All of this led me to wonder what a nation built on Martin Luther’s thoughts would be like. To be fair, we have to note that both Luther and Calvin lived centuries before the founding of the United States. Calvin could not have foreseen the way his thoughts would be applied. He may or may not have approved. It is always wrong to ask a historical figure with a different world view how they would have answered today’s issues. Nevertheless, even though we cannot ask Martin Luther his thoughts on American democracy today, if we apply histhoughts to government in his day we can realize something very important about our lives today.
You may remember the German Peasants war in 1524-1525. (Okay, you probably don’t.) Many peasants, inspired by some of the principles of the Reformation, revolted against their leaders – who were kings and princes. Luther took the side of the monarchs and wrote that the peasants should be subdued. As many as 100,000 of the 300,000 peasants who participated were killed. Luther did not trust the masses. What did they know about science, law, and theology? How could you trust people whose whims changed with the seasons? Luther cited scripture like Romans 13 to make his point. You’ll remember that we read, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed.”
Luther firmly believed that the government was by God’s choosing. That included cruel, abusive, and unjust governments. Remember, St. Paul’s letter to Rome occurred during Roman time. Rome’s government was hardly ideal. It oppressed, exploited, and killed numerous people. It was ultimately responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion! But Paul said it was God’s authority. Therefore, it must be obeyed.
A look at early Christian writings shows that the Christians prayed for their government and leaders, even as those leaders had them killed.
Luther’s own thoughts came back in the 20th century with horrible consequences. The Nazis in Germany cited Luther to support that they were put in place by God and that their actions were carrying out God’s will. Clearly that is way beyond what Luther intended. But the fact remains Luther trusted the educated and established leaders. He did not trust the general population.
For Luther, the point of government was to keep evil in check. It did so by laws, punishments, and wars when necessary. With evil in check, the Church could then spread the gospel. It was a fine idea by Luther, and it could be said to have worked in his time.
But then contrast that with these bold words in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
“…from the consent of the governed.” That’s definitely a departure from what any of the biblical authors intended. To them the power of government, even bad government, came from God; not from the population.
The Declaration of Independence has an immensely optimistic view of the world. It fits with the Age of Enlightenment, that with education and freedom you can trust people to know what is right and to do it.
But can you? And did the founders really believe it?
If you know your American history at all you know that we did not immediately go from the Declaration of Independence to the constitution that we have today. Our first centralized government was approved on November 15, 1777. It was called Articles of Confederation. While it is to be credited with having been capable of getting the infant nation through its revolutionary war, it wasn’t an effective form of government. The current constitution went into effect on September 17, 1787. You’ll remember that the only part of the federal government that the general population of the United States was originally allowed to choose directly was the House of Representatives. Senators were not chosen by the general public but by each state’s legislature. The president was chosen by the electoral college, which, like senators, was also chosen by the state legislators.
And who all actually had the right to vote? Again, this was determined by the state legislatures. It was a patchwork of rights that varied from state to state. Voter eligibility was determined by race, gender, wealth, land ownership, religion, and whether or not you paid your taxes. You might be an eligible voter at one time but not sometime later or in a different state.
There are many such examples of this. Pennsylvania serves as an interesting case. In the early 1800s wealthy black men had the right to vote. Poor white men did not. Then in 1838 Pennsylvania changed its constitution to remove wealth barriers to voting but it added race barriers. Thus, poor white men got the right to vote and wealthy black men lost it.
As far as I know, all of the oldest states have a complicated messy patchwork of who could vote and who could not. We may look back on it today and be offended. But note this, despite the Declaration of Independence saying that government derives its just right to govern by the consent of the governed, the founders didn’t really believe that. Like Martin Luther, they didn’t trust the common masses to make decisions about government.
These days many people may throw condemnations at them like: racist, sexist, ignorant, greedy, fearful, etc. Undeniably there is a measure of truth to those condemnations. But let’s not forget that there is wisdom in their thoughts as well. It is more likely that a reasonably well-to-do landholder is conscientious, dependable, hard-working, well-informed, and disciplined, than a homeless drug addict.
We may say that we’re all for equal voting rights, but how would we feel if government ran on the perspective of homeless drug addicts? No, we want our leadership to come from the perspective of education, discipline, and long-term critical thinking.
Given the warped logic, partial truths, and many downright lies I find on social media platforms, I understand why Martin Luther and why the founders of this nation didn’t trust the common masses to know how to rule effectively.
If, as Romans 13 says, we accept that government authority is instituted by God, and if we believe that we the ordinary people of a nation have the just right to the creation of that government, then we have taken upon ourselves an enormous divine responsibility. We have taken upon ourselves the rights of: life, justice, morality, war, economics, community development, technological innovation, and environmental protection.
We like to talk about the blessings of freedom and we consider it a basic human right to democratic rule. That may be good. But we should be terrified by the amount of responsibility such rights infer upon us.
It is astonishing that the American experiment of putting enlightenment era ideals of self-rule into a government system has actually worked for 250 years. Though the nation has myriads of problems, the remarkable experiment is proving to be robust.
But if it is going to flourish and embody the Christian ideals of Romans 13 then the work is never done. If you don’t have the right to determine your government then you can always shift the blame. But if you do have the right to determine your government then it is necessary for a society to put at the top of its virtue list: discipline, conscientiousness, humility, moderation, self-sacrifice, hard work, and trust in God. These are, in short, the virtues John Calvin thought should rise up in faithful Christians.
It is a long and difficult list, but it is the moral requirement of any people who desire to faithfully rule themselves. It’s never been done perfectly, but hopefully it has been done well enough. Ultimately, we Christians believe that the purpose of the government is to keep evil in check so that the gospel may be spread. Regardless of the form it takes, that is its purpose. It is supposed to support the mission of the gospel. May God forgive us when we inevitably fall short, and may God’s gracious providence continue to be with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)