The relationship between Saints and the State

Can Christians biblically justify armed rebellion against a government, even one that does not act in accordance with Christian principals?

 Delwyn X. Campbell

 John 19:6-11 ESV When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him." (7) The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." (8) When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. (9) He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave him no answer. (10) So Pilate said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?" (11) Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."

Act 5:26-29 ESV Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people. (27) And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, (28) saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us." (29) But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.

Rom 13:1-7 ESV Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, (4) for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (5) Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. (6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. (7) Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

 1Pe 2:13-17 ESV Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, (14) or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. (15) For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. (16) Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. (17) Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

These four passages cover what I see as the basic New Testament positions regarding the Christian in relation to the Government. Summarizing them, it is clear that the coming of Jesus as the Messiah did not give Christians the right or authority to raise an insurrection in His name, any more than He chose, when tried by Pilate and Herod, to free Himself from their control and re-establish the Davidic kingdom apart from fulfilling is role as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. At the same time, Peter’s answer to the Jewish Sanhedrin, the recognized legal authority, at least in things pertaining to the religious culture of Judea and Galilee, indicates that Christians cannot refuse to obey God’s will by hiding behind the dictate of the State. Believing, in accordance with Scripture, that God is the author of the Law, Christians are expected to obey the laws of the land insofar as such obedience does not force us to disobey the Word of God.

Thus, as we look over the generations of Christians prior to the 4th Century, the general posture in relation to the governments of Rome and Jerusalem was one of submission in terms of civil authority, but not in terms of spiritual authority. During the 4th Century, Roman Emperor Constantine requested that the leaders of the Catholic Church meet in order to set certain ecclesiastical and doctrinal issues in order, most notably, that of the nature of Christ in relation to the Father, and, that of the Godhead as a whole. Known to us as the Council of Nicaea, this Council drafted and ratified what we now know as the Nicene Creed. Constantine did not dictate the outcome, but accepted it as the will of God. As the civil authority, he supported the decisions made by the church leadership, backing it with the civil power of the sword as requested for the removal of certain church leaders from office. Later, of course, some of those who had proved successful, such as Athanasius, experienced the power of the sword when Constantine became convinced that the Arian position was legitimate.

Between the 4th and 16th centuries, the eastern and western branches of Christianity in Europe went in different directions regarding Church/State relations. In the west, the Church became dominant to the point that kings had to be crowned by the Pope in order to be recognized as the rightful ruler, while in the east, the church was a servant of the State. Martin Luther developed the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms and Two Governments. Distinct from the biblical teaching that places God and the World on opposite sides, Luther recognized that Scripture also shows earthly government as being under God’s authority, yet not part of the Kingdom of Christ. This is because there are aspects of earthly governmental function that existed prior to the advent of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel, yet these functions manifest the goodness and love of God as He preserves His creation through the agency of Government.

Luther said, “If anyone attempted to rule the world by the gospel and to abolish all temporal law and sword on the plea that all are baptized and Christian, and that, according to the gospel, there shall be among them no law or sword - or need for either - pray tell me, friend, what would he be doing? He would be loosing the ropes and chains of the savage wild beasts and letting them bite and mangle everyone, meanwhile insisting that they were harmless, tame, and gentle creatures; but I would have the proof in my wounds. Just so would the wicked under the name of Christian abuse evangelical freedom, carry on their rascality, and insist that they were Christians subject neither to law nor sword, as some are already raving and ranting.” Thus, he recognized that the presence of the Gospel would not lead to the cessation of Government as a necessary preservative presence in the world.

What about the situation found by the colonists in America under the authority of the British Crown? Did Luther have an opinion about our submission to the State when it involved disagreement? In 1525, as peasant and princely forces fought over a variety of grievances, Luther wrote Admonition to Peace, in which, while he acknowledged that the peasants had legitimate grievances, he argued that force was not the proper way to get changes instituted by the governing authorities. Then, after a violent massacre by peasant forces in the town of Weinberger, he wrote Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, in which he declared that the rebellion deserved to be crushed violently because the rebels are “are starting a rebellion, and are violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castles which are not theirs... they have doubly deserved death in body and soul as highwaymen and murderers... they cloak this terrible and horrible sin with the gospel... thus they become the worst blasphemers of God and slanderers of his holy name.”

Luther viewed Romans 13 as upholding the authority of the State in largely the same way that the 4th Commandment upholds parental authority. Just as poor parenting does not give children the right to rebel, poor exercise of government authority does not give the citizens authority to rebel. The only exception to this position is that given by Peter in Acts 5 (see above), which is in no way contradicted by his words in 1 Peter 2, or, for that matter, 1Pe 3:14-17 (ESV): But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, (15) but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, (16) having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (17) For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

Luther did not share the perspective expressed by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, “Common Sense,” which began, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise.” Instead, Luther saw Government as God’s left hand, and the Church as His right. To have Christians rebelling against government would be akin to having one side of the body attacking the other. In resisting immoral government actions, it would appear that Luther would have supported the nonviolent actions of the man who bore his name, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and he would have supported the actions taken by the Danes in World War II who, in the face of Nazi occupation, hid and enabled to escape over 7000 Jews to Sweden. Out of the entire Jewish population of Denmark, only 500 were apprehended by the Nazis, and 90% of those made it back home at the end of the conflict. All of this without any acts of violence.

In the end, the American Revolution was a political, rather than a theological action. The writings in defense of it were political statements, not theological or exegetical explanations. They were intended to strengthen the wills of the colonials who were going to war, not to persuade the British to repent and treat them differently. Most estimates indicate that there never was a majority of the population in support of the War, nevertheless, Washington and the political leaders understood that time was on their side, and that Britain could not fight against them forever, for there were other players with whom the Crown would have to contend, particularly the French, who would gladly take advantage of Britain’s being bogged down in North America, as she did. To say that God blessed it because they succeeded would be to say that “an ought is defined by an is.” Such a case could be made equally well by the governments of North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Iran, although not with our concurrence.

Creation and the Christian Story

Other than the Star Wars saga, which, in terms of publication, began in the middle of the story, stories that deal with entire world views tend to begin at the beginning. The Christian faith is a comprehensive world view. While it resonates primarily with believers, it discusses issues which are of interest to everyone, at least on some level. Unless you truly are of the sort that lives for today, forgets about yesterday, and hopes for tomorrow, every now and then, you ponder your roots.

Of course, Lutherans believe that the book of Genesis contains the record of creation. The first documents, the Creeds, declare that God is the “maker of Heaven and Earth.” Article I of the Augsburg Confession, “Concerning God,” likewise describes God as the “creator and preserver of all visible and invisible things.” The Confession specifically rejects the idea that there are two eternal beings, one good and the other evil, who were together responsible for creation. It also rejects random chance and macro-evolution as the mechanism of creation.

The Smalcald Articles are another confessional document. This document was written by Luther, himself, and was intended to represent Lutheran doctrine at a council called by Pope Paul III. Article I, speaking of the nature of God, echoes the Nicene Creed in declaring the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be the “one God, Who created heaven and earth, etc.”

The Catechisms were designed to be teaching documents. The Small Catechism was designed for use by local pastors and preachers, but also for use by the heads of households. The Large Catechism was actually a collection of sermons, re-edited by Luther, on the same topics. Thus, in its teaching on the First Article of the Nicene Creed, it explains the first line, confessing that “God has created me together with all that exists.” In addition, Lutherans believe that God is not an “absentee landlord” who shows no interest in His creation. Instead, God preserves everything that pertains to His creation, supplying all of our creature needs, and protecting us from evil.

In summary, the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 do not provide the explanation for the sorrow, suffering, and death that is now understood to be the normal part of existence. We are not naïve, for we are in this world, where we experience each of those things many times, either personally, or vicariously. We confess, however, that God is not the author of these things. We also believe that the Bible explains why bad things happen, and why death and decay are part of life. In the next chapter, you will see what that explanation is.

“Who needs Creeds and Confessions?”

In what do you believe? I mean, if someone asked you about your spirituality, or your faith, or your reason for going to church, what do you say? Most of us do the things that we do for a reason, and I suspect that, for the average person, that reason is rather utilitarian. In other words, we do it because of the perceived benefit to us. Ultimately, as a song from the movie, "Car Wash" went, "You've got to believe in something...."

The early Christian Church developed statements which defined what we believe. They are called "Creeds" or "Symbols," and they lay out the essentials of what it means to be an orthodox ("right-believing") Christian, as opposed to being a heterodox (heretical) one. Pretty much all of the historic branches of Christianity accept the first three universal or ecumenical creeds, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Every Christian church either directly confesses these creeds, or relies upon the concepts defined by those creeds for their own "statement of faith."

The Apostles' Creed, which reached its current form by the eighth century, was developed from what was known as the "Old Roman Creed," which came into being during the third century. The Nicene Creed, developed as the Church wrestled with questions regarding the nature of Christ during the fourth century, was the defense against Arian attempts to portray Christ as a superior creature, but not God. The Athanasian Creed a Latin expression of faith, originated in southern France during the fifth century. Each of these creeds, along with other creedal or confessional statements, came into being to deal with what was perceived to be a concrete threat to Christian unity in teaching.

Creeds have been used as teaching tools, as baptismal confessions, as well as statements for the defense of the faith. It's probably easier, for example, to memorize the Nicene Creed than it is to memorize all of the passages of Scripture that address the issues contained within it, for most of us, and it's easier to put in your pocket. Here, as an example of what I mean, is a copy of the Nicene Creed:
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, seen and unseen.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father; through whom all things were made. For us human beings and for our salvation, he came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became a human being. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into the heavens and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead. There shall be no end to His kingdom.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the Prophets.

In one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.”

Maybe your church confesses a creed; maybe it holds to the position, "No creed but Christ; no belief but the Bible." Either way, you have an idea of what it means to be a Christian, and what it does not mean. That, in essence, is what a creed does for us. We can try to "re-invent the wheel," creating a statement of what we believe based on our own insights and issues, or we can join with the generations of Christians stretching back to the third and fourth centuries, reflecting a faith that goes back even further. Otherwise, people can define your faith for you, as many try to do, usually in ways we don't like. For the fledgling Lutheran Church, the inclusion of these creeds within the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, or, Defense, conveyed that they were not making a radical departure from what it meant to be a Christian and part of the Universal Church. Martin Luther argued that, contrary to being heretical, his teachings were in perfect alignment with the earliest teachings of the Church, and that it was Rome that had strayed, thus requiring faithful ministers to call her to account for her good, and for the benefit of believers.

In a larger sense, in fact, that is the message of the entirety of the Augsburg Confessions. Philipp Melanchthon hoped that Rome would understand, and accept, what the Lutheran pastors and civic leaders were saying, and would embrace these positions. Sadly, that did not happen, and the division between the two groups hardened, to the point that the Lutheran believers were forced to choose between obedience to Rome, and obedience to the Gospel.

 

Why Write This Book?

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther first became a historical figure because he wanted to clear something up. In 1517, ten years after he was ordained into the Roman Catholic priesthood, he felt compelled to question the claims that were being made with regard to a popular religious practice known as “indulgences.” Defined by the Catholic Church as “a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin,” during that year, Pope Leo X had declared them for those who financially supported the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome.

Whether Rome intended to say that one could “buy one’s way out of punishment,” or bribe God through His representative, the Pope, this is how these indulgences came to be understood. People purchased indulgences, not only for themselves, but for their departed loved ones. Luther’s challenge to this practice was, for him, the first step of a journey that would lead him and others to seek the reformation of what had become a carnal institution to its divine spiritual purpose. Luther understood that the Church was not simply a hierarchical institution that existed to dispense grace to those who sought peace with God. Through his reading of the Scriptures, Luther saw that God gathered together those who, in response to the free promise of grace through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, repented of their sins, believing the Good News.

Over the next decades, Luther, along with such men as Philipp Melanchthon, Jakob Andraea, Martin Chemnitz, and Nickolaus Selnecker, taught, preached, and wrote what would become the essential doctrines of the Evangelical or Lutheran faith. By 1580, the Book of Concord, containing the Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles’ Creed, Nico-Constantinopolitan Creed, and Athanasian Creed), the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531), the Smalcald Articles (1537), the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537), Luther's Small and Large Catechisms (1529), and the Formula of Concord (1577), gave to both friend and foe, Catholic, Protestant, and the curious, a clear, pure exposition of what it means to be a Lutheran Christian.

This book discusses the main themes of the Lutheran understanding of Christianity, as explained by these documents. Along the way, we’ll look at the history of what began as a dispute between a man and his religious superiors about a point of doctrine, but was, in God’s hands, a pruning away of false, unbiblical notions about what it means to love God, have a relationship with God, and serve God and His Church in His world. Hopefully, you will understand what makes Lutheranism unique, as well as how, although the Lutheran Church has existed for 500 years, the faith which she preaches reaches back to the Apostle’s doctrine, and reaches forward to this moment. By God’s help, may you become both a hearer, and a doer, of His Word, and may this book help encourage you in the Faith.

 

My Book Project...

Everyone has something that they do well. Whether its a singular athleticism that vaults one above the ranks of myriads of high school ball players into the pros, an unerring ability to see what people desire and find a way to supply it, or an amazing gift of expression, we look at some people and express our admiration in the one way that matters i American society - we PAY them!

Since I was a child, I knew that I would not be likely to follow in Ernie Bank's footsteps, nor was I likely to continue my father's stellar work with Neu View Disposal Services. For the former, my arm strength was not enough to catch the eye of the Chicago Cubs, and for the latter, I just did not know enough about vehicle maintenance to keep those trucks running. There was something that I did reasonably well, though. I could put words together in ways that others found interesting, even enjoyable.

I have indulged this talent in two ways, so far. Going to school to get a degree has allowed me to write on a wide variety of subjects, and my professors seemed to have a good time reading my work, at least, based upon the grades they gave me. The rise of social media, such as blogging sites and the ubiquitous Facebook, has given me a place to comment, explore, and create. Unfortunately, neither of those venues, however, generates that form of approval that makes it worth the time that I enjoy spending (smile).

I am about to present a project that I would like to turn into a book. I would like your thoughts about it. If it works for you, then I will offer it to everyone else. Thus, I am, as it were, giving you an opportunity to invest in a major life decision. How often do you get to do something like that?

Of course, as the saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility." I want your honest assessment. Please don't make light of this, and, on the other end of the spectrum, don't blow smoke up my... well, you know. Just give me your honest thoughts, and I'll take it from there.

We are Not Alone; We are Helpers of One Another

President Obama has found a new way to enrage the Right. In a recent speech, he said that "I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Since he made those remarks, the internet has become filled with righteous indignation from those who think that the President was trying to steal the thunder of those intrepid brave individuals who own businesses. All of this, of course, is part of the President's plan to turn America into a Marxist utopia by stealth, since we haven't embraced the violent overthrow of our Federal republic sought by the radical Left. If we can't bomb Capitalism out of existence, then we'll disparage it away.

Personally, I have come to a place where I am, I think, ambivalent as to the outcome of this election. I feel that, if we really cared about the spirituality of our government officials, we would be more aggressive about encouraging mature Christians who display the gift of administration (1 Cor 12:28) to seek political office. What I hear from most commentators, however, are more utilitarian questions: "who has the best chance of winning," or "who would be the most supportive of business interests?" This makes sense coming from a secular humanist who was also a conservative, who is, after all, completely focused upon this life, with no thought given to the life to come. For a Christian, however, it should make sense that one would hear some mention of Kingdom values, along with a desire for truth above all other things, even if it has a consequence other than what one might desire in the short term.

I listened to the President's words, I read the transcript of the speech, and I came to the conclusion that either some people were not hearing what Obama was actually saying, or they were determined to put the most malevolent interpretation upon anything he has said or done. Thus, in this case, Obama was saying that rugged individualism, as nice as it might sound to our American sensibilities, is not the way that progress happens today (if it ever was). Instead, we are engaged in a community-wide dance involving owners, workers, and consumers, with government standing by to ensure that no one takes undue advantage over anyone else. I believe this reflects Paul's explanation of the role of Government in Romans 13. In the ideal function of government, it takes no party's side, but acts to endure that injustice does not prevail. Since we don't live in a perfect world, but in a sinful one, no one will behave perfectly, and we will all have our moments of integrity, and our moments of iniquity.

Whether former-Governor Romney is a better businessman than President Obama, my only concern is that he be a just ruler. The U.S. is not a company, existing to make a profit, but a union of citizens, formed to ensure domestic tranquility and promote the common defense. I do not believe that there are many who take literally Pres. Ronald Reagan's rhetorical flourish of "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem," at least, not to the point where they seek the total elimination of it. In like manner, I don't believe that there are many who think that only government can make the decisions that are necessary to sustain lives of the citizens. We are neither isolationists nor collectivists in an absolute sense. What we are, according to the Scriptures, is a body, consisting of many members, all of whom do our parts, within the real of our sphere, to help one another. That is Christ's prayer to the Father for us in John 17:11, that "they may be one, even as We are one." Those words pertain to the Body of Christ, but just as there is only one Body, so we have but one nation. Just as God desires only the best for us, so we should only desire the best for our nation, and not at the cost of others. As the days crawl slowly to our next election, I hope that we don't get so caught up in the hype of political intrigue and engagement that we lose sight of that. On the day after the polls close, there will still be only one United States of America.

You've Got to Believe in Something

In what do you believe? I mean, if someone asked you about your spirituality, or your faith, or your reason for going to church, what do you say? Most of us do the things that we do for a reason, and I suspect that, for the average person, that reason is rather utilitarian. In other words, we do it because of the perceived benefit to us. Ultimately, as a song from the movie, "Car Wash" went, "You've got to believe in something...."

The early Christian faith developed statements which defined what we believe. They are called "Creeds" or "Symbols," and they lay out the essentials of what it means to be an orthodox ("right-believing") Christian, as opposed to being a heterodox (heretical) one. Pretty much all of the historic branches of Christianity accept the first three universal or ecumenical creeds, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Every Christian church either directly confesses these creeds, or relies upon the concepts defined by those creeds for their own "statement of faith."

The Apostles' Creed, which reached its current form by the eighth century, was developed from what was known as the "Old Roman Creed," which came into being during the third century. The Nicene Creed, developed as the Church wrestled with questions regarding the nature of Christ during the fourth century, was the defense against Arian attempts to portray Christ as a superior creature, but not God. The Athanasian Creed, originating in southern France during the fifth century. Each of these creeds, as well as some of the other credal or confessional statements, came into being to deal with what was perceived to be a concrete threat to Christian unity in teaching.

Creeds are important. While they are not divinely originated, they are designed to explain what God has revealed, from the Scriptures, about Himself, His creation, and His redeemed people, the Church. As such, creeds have been used as teaching tools, as baptismal confessions, as well as statements for the defense of the faith. It's probably easier, for example, to memorize the Nicene Creed than it is to memorize all of the passages of Scripture that address the issues contained within it, for most of us, and it's easier to put in your pocket. Here, as an example of what I mean, is a copy of the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Maybe your church confesses a creed; maybe it holds to the position, "No creed but Christ; no belief but the Bible." Either way, you have an idea of what it means to be a Christian, and what it does not mean. That, in essense, is what a creed does for us. We can try to "re-invent the wheel," creating a statement of what we believe based on our own insights and issues, or we can join with the generations of Christians stretching back to the third and fourth centuries, reflecting a faith that goes back even further. Otherwise, people can define your faith for you, as many try to do, usually in ways we don't like.

God or Godfather? When did giving become a protection racket?

You moved into the neighborhood, got settled in, and were enjoying the wonderful neighbors, beautiful scenery, and perfect amenities. One day, you answer your door to find a well-dressed, grim-faced man standeing before you, holding a book. Before you can ask him the nature of his business, he informs you, "I serve the God-father. I am here to inform you that your continued peace and tranquility can only be maintained by paying a small protection fee. I will collect this fee on a weekly, by-weekly, or monthly basis. The fee is 10% of your income."

Startled, you look at this man for a trace of a chuckle, then over his shoulder in hopes of seeing a video camera indicating that this is an elaborate prank. His lips never curl, and he begins inventorying your possessions, noting that "it would be a shame to lose all these nice things. You never know when something bad could happen. Protection is a lot cheaper than replacement." After a few minutes, he leaves, promising to return in a week, and hoping that you make the right decision before "something unfortunate happens..."

A recent discussion on tithing got me thinking about how much of what passes for teaching about giving/tithe paying sounds like a thinly-veiled threat from Don Corleone. Instead of a dead horse in your bed, dire threats of unemployment, sickness, or misfortune are presented to you as the consequence of failing to maintain timely payments to the local representative of the "God-Father." Not wanting to risk it, you pay, or, not wanting to roll over, you protest. If you do the former, you are praised for being wise enough to trust in the protection of the God-Father, but if you do the latter, your name is bandied about the neighborhood as a selfish, money-grubbing parasite who wants to live in the neighborhood but doesn't want to support it. Of course, no one told you about this requirement when you accepted the invitation to move in, but now the representatives tell you that it was right there in the contract.

I know that "tithe" means "tenth." I also know that there are no passsages of Scripture where that tenth was made of a person's silver or gold, but rather as I once read in an email on the subject, "tithes were counted from a family's assets, not from their income." In other words, you tithed from your cattle, flocks, and crops, not from any income that you might have derived from them.

This is a simple proposition, one that, if I am wrong, I should have been shown such long ago. Instead, I get mocked, accused of having poor theology, or threatened with dire calamity for daring to speak against what I see as an extortion scheme. Perhaps there is no way to prove me wrong, because the words that would do so were never written in Scripture. The expectation that Christians will be generous with their resources is found in Scripture, along with promises that this generosity will not go unnoticed by the generous Savior. This call to generosity for others, especially other Christians, is different from the demand for payment made based on Malachi 3:9-10, which, if it were admitted, was not written to a single Christian, but at the most, to the nation of Israel, and, according to some, specifically to the very Levites who were beneficiaries of the Holy Tithe which consisted of flocks, herds, and crops produced within the land of Israel.

To me, the image of a generous Christian community is far more consistent with the message of the New Testament than is the image of a taxed community, forking over 10% of their income in order to have a comfortable life protected from the vagaries of living. Do tithe payers really manage to avoid such things as sickness, car accidents, getting traffic tickets for speeding, and I.R.S. audits? I wonder. Last time I checked, even Rev. Fred K.C. Price had to pay the hospital bills that his wife incurred when fighting cancer. They didn't magically vanish simply because he paid himself 10% of the money that was given to him by his congregation in hopes that they would be spared the bumps and bruises of life. I've known of rich tithe payers, and poor tithe payers, and I've known of rich non-payers, and poor non-payers. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between an individual's willingness to pay and their possession of wealth.

Of course, as I once said when I first began studying this issue, I would love to be wrong. After all, if a small investment of 10% of my income would open the doors to fantastic wealth, I would be a fool not to fork it over! That would certainly be no more than the various multilevel promoters have sought to separate from me in recent years, with some slight degree of success. Unfortunately, I have had as much success handing over my payment as I have after purchasing the latest book. If godliness were a means of gain, then I must have somehow failed to get my payments properly credited.

More to the point, I think that, again, the Christian model of giving is the generosity desplayed by our Lord, who, seeing that we needed someone to save us, provided the exact resources that could meet our dire need - His life and blood. He purchased our redemption with his blood, and when our brother or sister is hungry, without shelter, in need of aid, or struggling, we can also be generous in finding and supplying the resources that will meet their needs. The God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is not the Godfather Don Corleone, He is not a mobster, and we are not buying protection under the guise of giving.

Does God need the 10 Commandments to tell Him how to live?

I am about to enter the gateway educational facility for Lutheran ministry for the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Concordia University. Within a few years, I will be serving as a pastor/teacher in a denomination that has a history of over 500 years, but not much of a footprint in the African American community.

There are certain things that I have learned that were familiar to me after my years in discipleship. My current church home, Promise Lutheran of Murrieta, is a place where God's love for us, expressed in the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is preached and taught regularly. The joys of Christian service are also regularly expounded by Pastor Chris Deknatel, M.Th. There are a few things that I was ignorant about, because they weren't discussed very often in the Church of God in Christ world of which I have been a part for most of my Christian life. Strangely enough, one of them is the relationship between Law and Gospel, how they are ministered, what role they play in my life, and how I can see them in the Scriptures. Understanding this is probably one of the most important things I must do in order to effectively serve, being faithful to the Lutheran vision of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

For many of my Christian brothers and sisters, discussions about this are the farthest thing removed from their minds. Many of you are happy to be heaven bound, glad that your sins are forgiven, and not too worried about the fine print in the arrangement. As long as God does a few things for you, get you a nice job, get you a raise on that nice job, get you a attractive spouse to go with that nice job, get you a nice house with a reasonable mortgage to live in while you working at that nice job, married to that attractive spouse....

Now, there are some of you who enjoy a good theological discussion...or should I just put it out there; some of us just love a good debate about theological stuff. I admit, I have a little bit of that in me. Is it in my flesh or in my spirit? Are these spiritually edifying exercises in iron sharpening? I think the only way you can tell is, if you can't walk away from getting in the last word, you might be a "debatoholic." You know, like "My name is Delwyn; I'm a debatoholic." "Hi Delwyn..."

Now there is a legitimate issue on this, though. It was serious enough that Paul wrote about the issue extensively to the church in Galatia, and touched upon it in his letters to Colosse and Ephesus. When Christianity was developing, the New Testament was in the process of being written, and the Old Testament was, until close to the end of the first century, the only complete collection of Scripture that everyone had. It would have been relatively easy to continue the old process of proselytization, turning Gentiles into Jews via circumcision and teaching about the Law of Moses. That was, in fact, what some Jewish Christian tried to do in Antioch (see Acts 15), but their efforts were rebuffed by the church leaders in Jerusalem, including James, the brother of the Lord, and Peter. In the end, the saints at Antioch were given guidance on their conduct that would enable them to live in a way that pleases God, and enabled them to have a good testimony in their community.

I have intensely studied this issue for a few days now, and one thing that I have learned is that the concepts of Law and Gospel are found in both the Old and New Covenant. A good definition is that those portions of the Word of God which speak of what we must do in order to be righteous are defined as Law, while those portions of the Word of God which speak to what God has done in order make us righteous are defined as Gospel. The Law condemns us to death; the Gospel rescues from the condemnation declared by the Law. Both are of God, and both are holy.

Ok, but what does that mean to those of us who are not theologians, who are not tasked with preaching or teaching? What does this mean to me as I go about my day-to-day living? For one thing, maintaining the difference between the two is important because the Bible declares that the two are not synonymous, and they cannot be mingled. Christ did not come to bring a new law, but to bring into fruition the grace of God. At the same time, Christ's fulfillment enabled Him to break the cycle of death that held mankind in its grip, because He had done nothing worthy of death. He chose to lay down His life, and, by virtue of his fulfillment of the Law, He had the right to take His life back up again. God has declared that we may have Christ's legal righteousness placed to our account through faith in Him, and we can be made partakers of His righteous nature - enabling us to live like Him (2 Peter 1:2-4)!

Does this give us the license to walk contrary to the new nature of Christ, now placed in us by grace through faith? God forbid! We no longer need the Law to guard us, when we walk according to the Spirit, anymore than God needs the Law to tell Him what He should and should not do. Either the Spirit really does lead us, or we are deceiving ourselves. Either we are led by the Spirit of God, indicating that we are children of God (Rom 8:14), or we deceive ourselves, and His Word is not in us (1 John 2:6). God cannot lie, so when God says that these things are so, then we must confess that they are so (Rom 8:16-17).

I suspect that someone, somewhere, will accuse me of attempting to destroy the Law - as if I could! The Law exists entirely independent of me, It does not require my support for its existence. In order to preach the whole counsel of God, I must proclaim the Law of God as well as the Gospel of God. What I cannot do, however, is give anyone the impression that there are two ways of salvation, one which involves my effort, and gives me a basis for boasting before God of my righteousness, and another that rests upon Christ, and takes away any basis for boasting in my righteousness. There has always been, and there will always be, only one way of salvation - by grace through faith.

Forgive and Move Forward

When people do wrong, we have a mixture of emotions. Do we know the person? Do we like the person? Do we despise the person? Our reactions to the transgressions of others is colored by a lot of subjective filters that can cause us to become biased, even if unintentionally.

I recently had a lengthy, shallow, social network conversation about forgiveness, casting stones, judging, and so on. Everyone involved in the conversation was a Christian, so all of us understand the basics about sin, grace, and forgiveness - I hope. All of us, I think, would agree that repentance is a part of the experiential side of forgiveness, even as we know that, transcendentally, we experience forgiveness based on an eternal decree of God, acted out about 2000 years ago on "an old rugged cross." There are some who would argue that, since Christ paid for our sins by His shed blood, we don't need to say anything at all, or, at most, just thank God for our forgiveness.

I can see why that idea would be attractive. It keeps us from having to grapple with the impact of our actions, both on those who are directly involved, and upon others who look to us for inspiration and direction. Jesus said, while declaring that not everyone would be punished the same for their failures, that "For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required" (Luke 12:48b). Those who enjoy the benefits of being in the spotlight also have to carry the burdens. If you get to exercise authority, you will also have to exercise discipline, over yourself as well as over others.

There was a time when we understood that, without question. Commissioned officers were held to higher standards than were noncommissioned and petty officers, while recruits were basicly required to do whatever they were told by those more senior to them. In the civilian world, executives could be punished for violations of "moral turpitude," actions that were considered to be vile or depraved, as well as general violations of policy. People would seek to avoid shame, as well as the actual punishments that could result.

Now, it seems as if apologists spring up from every side to defend shameful and even illegal activity. A Senator consorts with a prostitute? No problem, since he is a good conservative. A Representative sends leud pictures of himself to relative strangers, and then lies about it? How dare we feel that he has violated the public trust? A pastor is accused of carrying on a sexual relationship with some of his teen-aged congregants? "Judge not," his supporters respond.

I don't know how we got here, in fact, I don't even care. That is all in the past. I do care, however, what we intend to do about it. I just spent yesterday being encouraged to be a man of integrity, reminded that my son will be watching me for direction of how he should conduct homself as a man as he grows up. I hope that is true, but I wonder. It seems that the acceptance of transgressions has become so commonplace in our culture, that those who are against us may seem to be more than those who are for us. Many times I have been surprised to hear that my concerns about integrity are now viewed as hypocrisy on its face, even though I say that I am only applying to others, the same standards that I apply to myself. Then I'm called a legalist, a prude, self-righteous, or worse. Have we lost even a cricket-sized sense of morality, in our quest to avoid excessive zeal in demanding excellence of one another?

I cannot force anyone else to find their seemingly-lost moral fiber, but I can make sure that I maintain what I still have. "Stolen waters" may be "sweet," but sooner or later, "be sure your sin will find you out." As the old song goes, "Where will you run to, on judgement day?" Those crowds who rose up to defend the moral failures of others will not be there at the Judgment Seat of Christ, and "the weakness of the flesh" will be insufficient to stand as a defense. Will the blood of Jesus wash away the sins of those who welcomed, rather than resisted, the devil? God knows, I don't, and I hate to gamble. I must, therefore, encourage myself, my son, and you, my friend, that our labor is still not in vain in the Lord. Whatever others may do, and regardless of what position they may hold, they are not God, and they have not changed His ways to make them like our ways, nor His thoughts, to be like our thoughts.