We can draw the inference that a Christian in politics – just as we would say to a Christian butcher, baker or candlestick maker – is called to honour God in the position he has given them and seek to live faithfully as believers as they go about their work. But this is not the same as the church qua church. Nor, incidentally, do we find many – even with the wherewithal to do so – pushing for government or regime change. It was John Calvin who said, ‘No man should think he is giving less service to the one God when he obeys human laws, pays tax, or bows his head to accept any other burden.’ The tenor of scripture, and consistent noise of the Bible, is submission to human authorities and non-compliance only when submission would cause us personally to disobey God.

Yesterday, we were continuing our sermon series in Matthew. This week we had reached Matthew 22:15-46 and the various attempts to trap Jesus with tricky questions. If you want to know how that passage was handled, you can watch our service back here – the preaching in our church comes at the front end of the service.

One of the points I made in that sermon concerned submission to civil authorities and government. Jesus’ famous ‘render unto Caesar’ comments – if he is saying anything at all – is that there is nothing incongruous or incompatible between living faithfully as believers and submitting to civil authorities. Everybody tends to get their knickers in a twist about ‘bad government’ and ‘government overreach’ but it doesn’t seem to trouble them that Jesus says nothing about that nor caveats what he says. Jesus is effectively commanding submission to the human authorities he has established in government.

It also bears saying two further things before I get to the point. First, Jesus is making these comments in the context of the Jewish people having just cheered him into Jerusalem and affirmed him as the Messiah. Matthew has been very carefully arguing up to this point that Jesus’ kingdom and messiahship will not necessarily meet the expectations of the Jewish mainstream understanding of kingdom and Messiahship. The expectation of the day is that the Messiah (and, therefore, Jesus at this point in their thinking) will re-establish the throne of David, reunite Israel and drive out the Roman occupying forces to restore a Jewish Free State under a Davidic king.

Second, it bears saying that the political context in which Jesus is making these comments is that of the Roman Empire. Leaving aside mainstream Jewish expectations of the Messiah, the Romans were hardly deemed benevolent rulers. The Jews hated them and their occupation of their land. And things didn’t get much better when the Apostles pick up Jesus teaching in both Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:17, both of which were written during Nero’s reign. Whatever else you may say about Nero, benevolent and tolerant are not the two obvious words that come to mind. So, for later Christians, for Paul and Peter to pick up this teaching and command submission to Rome and to ‘honour the Emperor’ is no small thing. This is the wider political context into which Jesus makes his comments.

In my sermon, the point I drew was a simple one: Jesus calls us to submit to earthly authorities. The repeated tenor of the New Testament is to submit to earthly authorities. So long as they are not specifically asking you to personally sin, you are to submit even to government you think of as particularly bad. There are no examples in the New Testament of Christians rising up to fight the power nor of seeking to gain control and then pull the levers of power. The general tenor of scripture is both to submit to authorities (cf. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:17) and to seek, not authority or special treatment or any such thing, but simply to pray that we would be able to lead peaceful and quiet lives (cf. 1 Tim 2:2). Very much a live and let live attitude, seeking nothing more from civil authorities than the ability to freely obey Jesus on a personal level. #

There is no crowing about government overreach anywhere in scripture nor is there a concerted and organised campaign by any of the churches to overturn social injustice – something which challenges the engagement of both left and right; both culture and social justice warriors. The church addressed injustice by seeking to lead peaceful and quiet lives as a church in all holiness, serving the community around them by doing what Jesus asks them to do as believers (cf. Acts 2:41-47; 4:32-37). Their only engagement with government were not when the authorities were passing laws that meant other people could sin in ways the church deemed detrimental to society nor to organise for rights and privileges (we see neither thing). Rather, it is only when the authorities sought to stop the believers from being able to obey scripture on a personal basis (e.g. Acts 5:27-32). Even then, the consistent message of scripture is simply non-compliance i.e. we will not do that and we will accept and submit to the consequences.

Which brings me to my point. It is very easy to look at Jesus’ words here, and the Apostles further teaching on it in the rest of scripture, and challenge others with it.

Read More