The Church Meeting in Jesus’ Name

602 Oak Knoll Dr.

San Antonio, TX 78228

Epistle

December 2019

2020 Event Calendar

JANUARY 5-12

• Revival with David Spurgeon

APRIL 10

• Women’s Meeting

JUNE 15 – 19

• Vacation Bible School

JULY 21 – 25

• Mission Conference

OCTOBER  17

• Men’s Meeting

 

Jurisdiction

And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.    Luke 20:25

Disregarding the insincere motive behind the question, it appears that a common justification for rebellion against Roman authority was the theocratic principle, that God was king. It was an alluring argument for first century zealots. Here it was used to put Jesus on the spot. But Jesus put the idea to rest with breathtaking clarity by establishing a separation of jurisdiction. Here he directly endorsed a secular government with authority over the economy, and with the right of coercion. However, by commanding believers to render certain things to God he limited the government’s jurisdiction to practical matters. Caesar certainly would not have accepted Christ’s limitation of his powers, but when Christ rendered to Caesar what was his, he justified disobedience to Caesar when it came to what was God’s. And the apostles understood. Some things are simply not within the government’s jurisdiction.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.                                                        Acts 5:29

Christians were not in positions of power to develop this governing principle for centuries, but eventually they would have opportunity to apply it to themselves. It was first crudely and briefly implemented by Constantine’s Edict of Milan (313). Afterward Christians in political power ignored it often, imposing their own particular beliefs on all others. Still you can find the idea of jurisdiction hiding in the shadows throughout medieval Roman Catholicism, even during the Inquisition, which deferred to the state certain aspects of their persecution of heretics. But the real progress began in England, with its three sided reformation. In America the idea culminated with input from every side, Anglicans, Puritans, Separatists, Levelers, Presbyterians, Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Roman Catholics and even infidel Enlightenment rationalists. Rendering unto Caesar and unto God respectively what is theirs is a fantastic, genius principle that literally produced the development of modern secular government. Every American, and much of the western world, owe the relative freedom from government oppression they enjoy to Christ’s groundbreaking wisdom. The modern political principle is now often called the “separation of Church and State.” By limiting each of their jurisdictions, it created freedom of conscience without total anarchy. Remarkably, it made sense immediately to the astonishment of Christ’s detractors, and it makes even more sense to us now that we’ve seen it applied. When Christians obey the principle it works.

But it needs to be remembered that this concept is entirely a Christian principle. I am not sure what precise role Christ’s words played in the individual political steps of the evolution of the idea, but the principle was not found stated in the Old Testament, where God established a theocracy, nor is it found in other religious foundations at all. It was Christ who surprised his contemporaries with justification of an infidel political ruler over practical aspects of our lives, and then audaciously limited him to the political sphere. And it was only within Christian dominions that the idea of limited secular jurisdiction was ever implemented. Paul, Augustine, Calvin, Cromwell and especially Roger Williams, and many others had a part in developing the ideal. And while it is true that during the formation of modern republican democracy most of the great architects were enlightenment rationalists, not personally Christians, such as Locke, Franklin, Paine, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison and Adams, not even one of them was an atheist, and all of them were working upon a Christian foundation, and under the assumptions of Christian ideals. The idea was never a Buddhist or Hindu standard, nor is it a Muslim precept to this day. It is certainly not an atheist principle.

And as it turns out, only Christians apply this great standard to themselves. Anti-Christians, traditionalist Buddhists and Hindus, fundamentalist Muslims, militant atheists and humanistic secularists, have no Jesus to guide them toward any practical compromise between jurisdictions. And wherever these have the governing power Christians and all others suffer. Fundamentalist Muslims want to impose Sharia Law on all of society. Non-Muslims under their political control are second-class citizens, without full legal rights, freedom of speech or genuine political voice. Atheistic governments have proven to be the worst offenders against believers or otherwise dissident, not just imposing political isolation or insignificance, but severe oppression, including incarceration and even mass murder. Study Russia, East Germany, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, and many others. Amazingly, there aren’t any significant exceptions. When Christians lose political power, the whole idea of separate jurisdiction disappears, no matter who else takes over.

In our day, Muslims and atheists object to Christian influence in our laws and society, and they stand on the jurisdiction principle to oppose it. But they can’t logically use the jurisdiction principle to oppose Christian influence in society, since the principle is Christian influence. And Muslims and Communists (political atheists) don’t believe in separate jurisdictions. They will not hesitate to impose their beliefs upon everyone under their rule. So when Christians have political power, and they impose such basic Christian principles upon society, where is the inconsistency? These principles limit their own political power, not expand it. An atheist who complains about the ten commandments posted on the courthouse wall claiming it violates the separation of church and state should consider what happens every time atheists or Muslims have political power. There is no separation any more. They impose their values ruthlessly upon everyone. The complaint is insincere and illogical. If they embrace separate jurisdictions, they embrace Christian influence.

Nevertheless, even some Christians seem to agree that imposing Christian values in a pluralistic society is not fair or consistent with the jurisdiction principle. This is because they misunderstand the scope of the principle itself. Christ granted power to a secular government, specifically the power to tax, and presumably the power to impose other practical (not religious) laws upon society. This jurisdiction was expanded upon by the apostles, notably Paul.

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.  Romans 13:4

So the secular power is authorized to withstand evil in society. We interpret this evil to be a societal evil, something that harms others, or society itself. Even an unbelieving political ruler is authorized to apply his own sense of social morality, while he is enjoined from enforcing his own religious beliefs on society. When rulers ignore that limitation all people are justified in disobedience. A believing politician then must also apply his Christian sense of morality without imposing his religious beliefs. And yet, only Christians find this difficult, drawing the line between jurisdictions, a line non-Christians trample all over without compunction.

The principle is right, and immensely valuable, but not easy to apply. The secular is not absolutely separate from the religious, and the practical is not neatly distinguishable from the spiritual. Many religions have harmful practices, and practical harm is within the jurisdiction of secular government. So all secular governments, including Christian ones, must cross the line sometimes to protect the innocent. Our courts are constantly drawing artificial legal boundaries to maintain some separation, because though the logic is sometimes hazy, and sometimes wrong, the division of jurisdiction is important even when it is not tidy.

This dilemma is not unusual. Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, developed a working framework between religion and science which he called “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” or NOMA (Natural History 106, March 1997, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html ). The claim was that science deals with the natural world, and religion deals with the moral order, and these should never interact. Gould got his idea from “Humani Generis,” an article written by Pope Pius XII in 1950, in which the Pope accepts biological evolution as legitimate as long as it doesn’t deny God’s gift of the soul. So the Pope compromised with unbelieving scientists, and Gould compromised with religious dogmatists, and between them they brokered a peace in their own minds.

The problem, however, is that science and religion do indeed overlap. The Bible makes specific claims about the natural world. And purely scientific assumptions make specific claims about morality. If life evolved unplanned without a creator, that disqualifies the very idea of morality. On the other hand, if God created us with a purpose, and revealed his will in the Bible, and Jesus really did rise again from the dead, that tells us a lot about natural science. And if so the brash assumptions of modern atheistic science are not only wrong, but also evil, and morally devastating to society. So while there is some value in distinguishing the scientific method from religious faith in a particular situation, it cannot be urged to disqualify all scientific examination of the Bible, nor a rational faith in the claims of the Bible.

The same can be said for political and spiritual jurisdictions. Certainly the principle of dividing church and state does not apply to the principle itself. Whenever possible it should be imposed as a Christian ideal, even by the force of law, and even if that makes it appear inconsistent and self-contradictory. The principle cannot logically disqualify itself. If the ideal is surrendered by self-doubting Christians because of some purported internal inconsistency, every human being involved will suffer.

Furthermore, in society certain basic Christian principles should be imposed by Christian leaders without self-doubt, without compromise, and without apology. This includes monogamy, right to life, equality of all people, abolition of slavery, and child labor laws, among others. The Christian principle of jurisdiction does not require the politician to ignore Christian morality. Nor is it hypocrisy for a Christian politician to endorse the separation doctrine, and still impose such basic Christian morality. If unbelievers believe this is unfair or inconsistent, they may quote Jesus to justify disobedience. It goes without saying that quoting Jesus undermines their claim. Christians submit to secular authority, even when it is not Christian. So when it is Christian, it is not unfair for the Christian to expect others to submit.

The separation of jurisdiction prohibits the government from unnecessary interference with religious beliefs, and prohibits Christians from imposing their religion on others by the power of government. But it cannot remove all influence of Christianity from society. And it better not. Because when Christians lose political power, the principle also disappears, and the whole world suffers.