This article is the second of a three-part series about Christians and the right to bear arms, written by former Navy SEAL Danny O’Neill. Read the first part here.
The theology a person holds will lead to how they live out their faith. This truth is illustrated by the contemporary American conception, or lack thereof, regarding the relationship between the church and the state.
One of the most abused passages over the past several years with respect to this topic is the thirteenth chapter of Romans. In this letter, the apostle Paul discusses a government which is a “terror” to bad conduct and a “servant” of God for the good of the people, as well as an “avenger” which justly wields the wrath of God against the evildoer (Romans 13:1-7). This account is not descriptive of the Roman Empire at the time or of our modern American government. The passage is instead prescriptive of an ideal government submitted to God, meaning that citizens ought to subject themselves to rulers insofar as they obey the higher law of God. There is a difference between the “king as a king, and a man as a king,” as Scottish minister and reformer Samuel Rutherford would say.
Christians ought to understand this distinction and consider various perspectives concerning the dynamic between the family, church, and state, all of which are legitimate authorities with specific delegated duties from God. Applications of this chapter of Romans which functionally advocate for submission to wicked tyrants, coupled with a pessimistic view of the future that has permeated the church for decades, have created massive issues that must be addressed.
The social contract
The most common perspective held by believers and nonbelievers is the secular view of the “social contract theory” used to define the authority of government. This binding social contract is predicated upon a formal agreement between a people and those in authority. As a result of this agreement, institutions and laws are set forth to dictate the ethics of both citizens and rulers.
Yet this presupposed formal agreement never occurred in our context. Some may say the United States Constitution was such an agreement, but this charter had to have been derived from somewhere. The Constitution is good, but only binding insofar as the principles are proven to be divine. The social contract thus remains hypothetical, which begs the question as to why we act as if there were a social contract. Where there is no agreement, there is no standard, thereby hindering the ability to objectively define rights and moral obligations for all parties involved.
The system then becomes malleable and subject to new interpretations. By nature of the hierarchy, those in power have a far easier time exercising their rights and overstepping their lawful boundaries compared to those beneath them. If a truth lies unclaimed, rogue leaders and other sinful men will grasp for authority over the truth and seek to fill the role of God.
The biblical view of a social contract is found in the Scriptures: every human institution, including the state, is derived from the nuclear family that started with Adam and Eve, of which Adam was the head. Families developed from Adam and Eve, followed by communities, then nations, and so forth, with leaders over each body.
Rutherford in his book Lex Rex said that people are not passive but rather choose a king in accord with what God has willed. The Scriptures indeed say that the Israelites made kings to rule over them, such as Abimelech, Saul, and David (Judges 9:6, 1 Samuel 11:15, 1 Chronicles 12:38). The Israelite kings were anointed by God and elected by the people, which provides evidence of an historical contract. In this view, the people and the governing authorities are ultimately subject to God as Creator, while God is never subjected to his creation. If the earthly rulers transgress against God, the people are free to resist them in keeping God as the ultimate authority. The earthly authorities ordained by God are not inherently wrong or sinful, because God institutes those positions while expecting obedience from their occupants, as the book of Romans describes about the ideal prescriptive government. The problem is that humans in their sinfulness can do much wrong when wielding power.
The church and the state
Christians informally presuppose the hypothetical social contract between themselves and civil authorities while claiming obedience to God within their church life. On one hand they appeal to no standard, and on the other they appeal to the ultimate standard. This phenomenon is essentially the outworking of the “radical two-kingdoms” mindset derived from a pessimistic eschatology that pervades American evangelical thought. In this view, there are two separate kingdoms: the kingdom of light that exists in neutrality and the kingdom of darkness that dominates cultural institutions. In living out that theology, there has been a reduction of biblical teachings as authoritative over all of human life, as well as a truncation of the Great Commission due to the view that the culture and institutions are not redeemable.
What results is an extreme separation of church and state. Adherents to pessimistic views of the future tend to believe that Christians should not concern themselves with imposing the morality of heaven upon the state, because everything outside of the church is expected to worsen. Scripture teaches that there is one kingdom, in which Christ is Lord over all people and the church. His kingdom is over all of heaven and earth (John 18:36, Matthew 28:18). There are two opposing armies in this spiritual war, but not two divided kingdoms that are supposed to exist in neutrality. The presence of spiritual warfare indicates that both sides are seeking victory over the other, meaning neutrality is an impossibility and passivity is not an option. The only factor that can facilitate harmony between the family, church, and state is the knowledge of God and the adherence to his holy precepts in every facet of human life.
Christians must realize that the person or entity who sins, not the legitimate position itself, ought to be resisted whether or not they claim to be Christian. All people in positions of authority before God are prescriptively required to be his servants and ministers. The only way to know how to conduct oneself when in authority, and whether resistance is justified when under submission, is by knowing the Word of God.
Understanding that there are inherently gray areas in ethics, the goal is for Christians to begin thinking through these topics so they can notice the inconsistencies in our modern world. For instance, if a civil ruler transgresses the civil law that is guiding society, they are supposed to be punished according to the law. Evidently that concept no longer applies to modern politics, as illustrated by the widespread corruption easily observed in public life. Instead of upholding a standard, the allowance of unashamed lawlessness prevails without any accountability.
However, no one can claim that they have transgressed unless they appeal to an ultimate standard. In knowing the ultimate standard, they are transgressing against God, and their inconsistency is always further displayed.
Take, for example, an instance where a wicked person decides to murder schoolchildren in a gun-free zone. On many occasions government officials respond by seeking to universally deconstruct the rights of law-abiding citizens under the guise of promoting safety. In the process, their desire to manipulate laws proves they have irrationally rejected any objective standard, including the theorized social contract of antiquity.
Conclusion
Civil rulers who are not bound by objective standards can seek to impose new restrictions upon citizens at will. This phenomenon demonstrates the futility of the secular social contract theory and introduces the standardless society in which we now live. If no one else will appeal to a standard and restore order to chaos, the responsibility falls to the Christians. People will follow and look to those who take responsibility amid chaos.
Secularism cannot correct itself morally, and therefore a church that practices a reduced version of the gospel and the Great Commission is fueling the contemporary dumpster fire. Darkness will continue to take ground unless the church counters with truth. There is no neutrality: Jesus is either reigning as Lord and subjecting all things under his feet, or he is not. The Scriptures say that he is, and our cultural and political discourse ought to reflect that reality.
Jesus is making all things new through his church, who are made conquerors by the power of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 43:19, Romans 8:37). Our society requires faithful Christians to bring the family, church, and state, which are divinely ordained offices, under his acknowledged rule.
