Obligations of the Christian to the State
Obligations of the Christian to the State OBLIGATIONS OF THE
CHRISTIAN TO THE STATE
By R. B. Sweet
What a Christian’s obligations are toward his government is of paramount importance just now when the government of our own country is arming to the teeth to be ready for possible invaders or, it may be, to take part in destroying totalitarianism; when everyone will have a share in paying taxes for the hugest building of armaments that has ever been made in peace times and will likely exceed even all previous wartimes; when army camps are being built near so many towns and cities in which we live; when every man in the nation between the ages of 21 and 36 must register with the government for possible military training! The houses of congress are ringing with debate over what we shall do to help those nations which still stand out against the agression of the dictators, Those debates will result in legislation that will demand from us sacrifices that begin with the payment of taxes and end with the demand that we offer our sons on the altar of liberty. Will we acceed to those demands or shall we refuse to obey such laws. What is a Christian’s obligation toward his state?
Let’s shift the scene to a time many centuries age when a prophet of God received a vision from Jehovah and look in on that vision.
“The word which came to Jeremiah from Jehovah, saying ‘Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.' Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he was making a work on the wheels. And when the vessel that he made of the clay was marred in the hand of the potter, he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, ‘O house of Israel, cannot I do with yeu as this potter?’ saith Jehovah. ‘Behold as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.'’’—Jeremiah 18:1-10).
Despite this clear vision of Jeremiah that God does take a hand in the affairs of the world, having a concern for nations and directing their destinies, there has been disagreement over what a Christian’s obligation is to his state. At least there is lack of agreement concerning how far that obligation would carry a Christian in his activities for his government.
There are three distinct steps in the investigation, or three stages through which our study must develop. Let us begin with the easiest part of the question first. All of us can take the first step together for there is general unanimity on this point. We shall not put this in the form of a question that will invite debate, but will make the positive statement that: The Christian has the obligation to support his govern-ment, first, in the paying of taxes, dues and customs, and second, in submitting to its laws, except when disobedi-ence to those laws would cause a violation of the laws of God. The clearest statement of this is found in the first seven verses of Romans 13 : “Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves j'udgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a 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 a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath but also for conscience's sake. For for this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God’s service, attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." This passage is the one upon which is concentrated most of the discussions which I have found. However, there are other statements in the New Testament of the same import. For example, we read from Titus 3:1 : “Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work.” And in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 we find: “I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil life in all godliness and gravity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Again, in 1 Peter 2:13-17 : “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for venegeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well. For so is the will of God, that by welldoing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God. Honor all men, love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” In the light of these plain commands from the New Testament there is no question but that a Christian is to support his government by the payment of taxes. t No comment, or explanation have we found that would even suggest that a Christian is to try to evade this obligation. Indeed, we find comments like this from McGarvcy-Pendleton commentary on Romans 13 : “For, for this cause ye pay tribute; for they are ministers of God’s service, attending continually upon this very thing....” Christians in our age have well nigh universally forgotten that the tax assessor and the tax collector are ministers of God, and many evade making true returns with as little compunction as they would were the tax officials the servants of the devil. This sin has become so universal that it is well-nigh regarded as a virtue.”
We hope that Christians are not guilty of tax evasion as nearly universal as these commentators seem to think, but we must certainly understand that the Chris-tian has the obligation to pay taxes as they are levied by his government. Jesus himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” in connection with the question when it was put to him as to whether it was lawful to pay tribute. We all remember the occasion of Peter’s being asked whether his roaster paid the half-shekel tax and his answering impulsively that he surely did. Then how, later, Jesus talked with him about it and instructed him to go catch a fish and take the shekel that he found in its mouth to pay the tax for both himself and Peter.
There is general agreement too that Christians are to submit to all the other laws of the land, with this notable exception: when the law of the land would require something of the Christian that he cannot do without violating one of God’s laws, then he must obey God rather than men. We have the example of the apostles Peter and John being commanded by the authorities “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.” This prohibition was imposed, by the way, at the instigation of the religious authorities, not of the civil authorities. But the civil authorities had been called in and were party to the proceedings. “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard” (Acts 4:18-20), Here is the inspired precedent for the Christian’s obeying God’s law in preference to some law or direction from men that conflicts with God’s law. God’s laws are always supreme to all others and must have first place in the Christian’s loyalty and observance. Surely, none will argue or take exception to that statement. Did you notice that three times in that rather short Romans passage it is stated that the civil authority is “a minister of God”? It is also said, in connection with one of these statements, that he is a minister of God “for good.”
Thus far, then, there is general agreement: that a Christian not only may but must pay his taxes and ob-serve all the laws of his state that do not conflict with his duty toward God. The next step in our inquiry is to see whether a Christian has the obligation or the privilege to serve in some official capacity in civil government. Here is a problem concerning which there is a difference of opinion and a parting of the ways although each party claims that his viewpoint is amply supported by the plain teachings of the scriptures. For example, Brother Lipscomb says in part, in his commentary on Romans: “When men refuse to be governed by God, they must be governed by some power, and God ordains other governments to punish them for refusing his. The higher powers are immediately introduced to execu te wrath on evil doers—that is, the civil officer is God’s appointed agent to do what he says the Christian cannot do.
“The fact that God ordains human government is no evidence that it is good for Christians to participate in its administration; but it does indicate that it is good for the purpose for which he ordained it, and is to be submitted to by Christians.”
“Quiet, passive submission that involves no violation of the laws of the spiritual kingdom is the measure and limit of their connection with them.”
“Human government is ordained of God to rule and punish those who are not subject, to God. It is to be used and operated by them.” On the other hand there are remarks like these from the McGarvey-Pendleton Commentary on the same pas-sage: “As we understand it, the idea which the apostle is seeking to convey is that duties to God and duties to the state are parallel, rather than antagonistic. If the Christian is true to his religion, he need fear neither the state nor God, for God rules, generally speaking, in and through the state, as well as in his providences.” Moses E. Lard has the following to say:
“All civil governments derive their origin and au-thority from God, and when doing right, have his sanc-tion. He therefore requires his children to be obedient to them; and where they fail, they resist not merely the government but him. Civil officers, too, are designed to be for good to God’s children, and not a source of fear. Neither therefore must they be resisted.”
“The object of all civil governments is to protest their subjects in their great natural rights of person, property and liberty, and suitably to punish evil-doers. In regard to religion, civil authorities must leave their subjects to do precisely what God requires of them, without the slightest interference. So long as they confine themselves within these limits, and to these necessary duties, they are to be scrupulously obeyed.”
“There is no legitimate or rightful authority but from God. Authority of a different kind is never from him. He no more appoints governments to do wrong or sanctions wrong in them, than he sanctions sin in man.”
;
Though, of course, it is outside our own literature, it may be interesting to some to hear a couple of com-ments from Adam Clarke on this same passage: “As God is the origin of power, and the supreme Governor of the universe, he delegates authority to whomsoever he will; and though in many cases the governor himself may not be of God, yet civil govern-ment is of him: for without this there could be no society, no security, no private property; all would be confusion and anarchy, and the habitable world would soon be depopulated.”
“For civil government is established in the order of God for the support, defence, and happiness of society, they who transgress its laws, not only expose them-selves to the penalties assigned by the statutes, but also to guilt in their own consciences, because they sin against God.”
These remarks made on the Romans passage are typ-ical, I believe, of their attitude toward the entire ques-tion of whether a Christian may take part in the affairs of civil government These divergent views toward the Christian’s obligation arise from two different and opposite views concerning the origin and function of government. On the one hand we find the view that all human government arose in rebellion to God; that originally God meant to govern humanity directly, giving all the laws and regulations concerning the activities of human beings. But humanity rebelled against God’s direct government and set up governments of their own in order that they might escape being subject to God’s government. Since they were so determined to have their own governments, God permitted it, and to this day allows them to exist although they are in rebellion against his government. Therefore, every human gov-ernment is evil and is maintained in opposition to God. Since they exist and are evil God uses them, now one and now another, to punish certain nations which have grown so grossly evil that he cannot longer tolerate their wickedness. This view sees human and civil governments always and everywhere as direct rebellion against. God. Since that is the situation, obviously any Christian who participated in the affairs of government in any degree, would be in an institution that exists in direct rebellion against God’s beneficent rule; therefore he stands in open rebellion against God. If we accept the major premise, that all human government is in open rebellion against God, then we will have to accept the conclusion that a Christian who participates in them is sinning. And that is an end of all participation in civil government for the Christian. But is that view of civil government warranted by what we find in the Bible? That a government here and there was violently wicked and in open rebellion against God does not prove that all are. If we condemn all because some were failures, then we shall have to condemn all religion because some of its devotees have been as corrupt and grossly wicked as any human governments have been.
It is churned by this school that Jesus’ purpose was to destroy all human government and that in refusing to be made a king over a restored kingdom of Israel he is teaching that none of his followers may have any part in such a government. Jesus said “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's” thereby commanding support of a human government. Then he is aiding that which he came to destroy. He said himself that, “a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.” Then there must be some purpose for civil government and some duty which a Christian must render to it. The non-participation view presents the impossible situation of Christ’s saying support with your money that which is evil. Even though government may be instituted to wreak wrath upon the evil doer, when a Christian supports such a government with his taxes he is maintaining an evil institution that good may come from it. Doing evil that good may come is a principle most emphatically condemned by the New Testament. At Jesus’ trial before Pilate, it was not the civil government that sought his death. On the contrary it was Caiaphas and his henchmen who tried Jesus and condemned him to die on the testimony of perjured witnesses, but they did not have the authority to put him to death. They had to have the sentence passed by the civil authority. That they wrested from Pilate, the Roman governor of the province, by lies and false charges; Pilate trying desperately the while to release Jesus, announcing no less than three times that he could find no fault in him. He even tried to release him without respect to his guilt by taking advantage of their custom of releasing one prisoner during their festival, but Jesus' enemies cried out for the release
of Barabbas instead and demanded that Jesus be cruci-fied. It was the ecclesiastical tyranny that demanded the death of Jesus; the religious racketeers of his own nation. Indeed, the civil governor seems to be the only friend that Jesus had in that mad mob that day. If that is a fair sample of what religion will do, one might very well argue, then we want nothing at all to do with religion.
If an evil ruler now and then condemns all civil gov-ernment, then all religious teachers and leaders are condemned by what Annas, Caiaphas and their com-pany did that day to Jesus. We know that the wicked-ness of those envious, religious fanatics is not at all representative of what the religion of Jehovah would have made them has they followed his laws, and that religion is not to be condemned in its entirety because those who delivered Jesus up in envy were failing to follow God’s laws for them.
We may say, then, that because some governments went terribly wrong that does not in itself condemn human government. When we read Romans 13:1-7 without any qualifying statements or without some effort to make it fit a particular theory, it seems most obviously to teach that God did institute government for the good of humanity. Listen to it again:
“Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers : for there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power withetandeth the ordinance of God and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judg-ment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is a 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 a minister of God, an avenger of wrath to him that doeth evil.”
We are told that a Christian may not participate in the government because it is God’s instrument for taking vengeance on evil-doers and the Christian is com-manded not to avenge himself. Just before the passage read that is in the twelfth chapter of Romans verse 19, it is said: “Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.' ” And then in 13:4 we read of the civil governor that “he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.” And it continues, "Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.”
Instead of teaching that a Christian must not par-ticipate, it seems to me that this passage teaches as clearly as it could be stated that the civil government is approved of God and that it is his instrument for getting certain things done that no individual should do, Christian or non-Christian. That is to say, it is teaching clearly that government is good; that God has ordained it, and therefore the Christian is not to take the law into his own hands, either to avenge himself upon his enemy, or to be an insurrectionist against the government, but he is to let the law take its course.
“Avenge not yourselves,” and if a man “smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,” surely forbid personal retaliation, but as the government “is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil,” the Christian should not shirk his responsibility as a part of the government to do his share in its work; "therefore he must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.”
Jesus said “turn the other cheek,” but he did not say turn the other man’s cheek: not to turn the cheek of the weak and defenseless. Though a man has the right to sacrifice himself he does not have the right to sacrifice others.
“Cut off thy hand,” and “pluck out thine eye,” are commands that we tone down as being figurative. May not this about “turning the other cheek,” also be subject to Such treatment? If every man would observe the directions given in Romans 13 and allow the government, God’s instrument for that purpose, to take vengeance for him upon his oppressors, there would be an end of the evil of mob violence. And that is the very purpose of this passage—to get the Christian to see that he must allow the government to take over in such things as admin-istering punishment to the wrongdoer. This has no bearing on whether a Christian may be one of the offi-cers of that government, for when a government official administers the laws of the land it is not himself, personally, who takes vengeance, or administers pun-ishment to a law-breaker, but it is the law of the land through him that is being satisfied
.
In his essay on capital punishment, Alexander Campbell says:
“Civil government is itself a divine appendix to the volumes of religion and morality. Though neither Cae-sar nor Napoleon, Nicholas nor Victoria, were, “by the grace of God,” king, emperor or queen; still the civil throne, the civil magistrate, and therefore, civil gov-ernment are, by the grace of God, bestowed upon the world. Neither the church nor the world could exist without it. God himself, therefore, benevolently or-dained magistrates and judges.”
“The Bible has sanctioned republics, and common-wealths and kingdoms, without affixing any peculiar name to them. It prescribes no form of human gov-ernment, because no one form would suit all the coun-tries, climes and people of the earth. But the Bible, in the name and by the authority of its Author, demands of all persons in authority that they protect the innocent, that they punish the guilty, and that they dispense justice to all. It also demands of the governed that they submit to “the powers that be,” however denominated, as an ordinance of God; not through the fear of the sword, but for the sake of conscience. It inhibits them also from treason, insubordination and rebellion.”
We have been discussing the viewpoint that all hu-man government originated in rebellion against God and that God uses one to punish other wicked nations and that, therefore, the Christian may not participate in its administration. The other point of view concerning the origin and function of government has necessarily been touched upon in the discussion thus far. That is, that human government serves a vital and necessary function in the affairs of men, and that it arose to furnish the methods and machinery for accomplishing much good and needful work that would not be done so long as every man is a law unto himself, or even if all men were absolutely obedient to God’s spiritual laws.
Whatever may be said of other governments, I believe that it may be stated without the possibility of contradiction that our government in the United States was not created in rebellion against God’s laws but to escape the oppression that was elsewhere inflicted upon those who would not conform to tyrannical religious regulations. It was to escape oppression and for the express purpose of giving men an opportunity to worship God according to the dictates of their own con-sciences that our government came into being.
Now if it is possible that government may, at least sometimes, be good; not be in rebellion against God, then it might also be possible for a Christian to have part in it as an official or an employee of it. However, it is argued in this and other connections, that the New Testament gives instructions concerning every relationship that a Christian may legitimately sustain toward others. For example, directions are given con-cerning children’s behaviour toward their parents, of parents toward their children, of husband to wife and wife to husband, of a master toward his slave and the slave toward his master, and other such relationships. But nowhere can be found instructions concerning a Christian in a government post. From that the conclu-sion is drawn that the absence of such instructions is tantamount to a command not to participate in such activities.
If that is true it will cut the Christian out from a. lot of things which are very beneficial to humanity. Where are the instructions concerning running a college? concerning the management of a publishing house? May a Christian be a member of a labor union? There is absolutely nothing said about labor unions in the New Testament but thousands of Christians are faced with the problem of participating in such organinations. Nothing1 is said about trade associations, or labor organizations or professional societies. Shall we conclude that a Christian may not have part in any such thing? What proves too much may prove nothing!
What is the answer? I think that the New Testament is a much more powerful book than even a lot of its staunchest defenders can see. It is a book that does not pretend to give minute regulations for every activity that a Christian may engage in, nor instructions covering every possible relationship. It gives certain broad principles that will develop the spirit into the likeness of the spirit of Christ when faithfully observed and then, guided by that spirit, the Christian is to make some choices for himself concerning his work or professsion. Inspired with the desire to serve humanity, he will seek opportunities to be servant of the most, for “he that is greatest among you shall be servant of all.” Now, guided by principles of honesty, sobriety, absolute devotion to God and loyalty to his church, with a sincere desire to serve his fellows, he vill serve them in the position and capacity where he thinks he can be of most service in keeping with his natural inclinations and preparation. If that place is a government office, or as an executive in industry, or a teacher in the public schools or an administrator in a university, wherever he will not have to sacrifice his Christian principles, there he may or must serve or he is failing1 in some measure to use his talents. When we discard everything that we cannot find called by name in the New Testament we are trying to confine the teachings of the New Testament to too narrow a channel. Though some will do that, there are others who drink deep of the spirit of Christ and that very spirit of outgoing, sacrificial service will cause their Christianity to burst out of the bounds set by the too legalistic, and will overflow into all life where it has opportunity to bring its life-giving influence. The early Christians withdrew from governmental and many other activities! Suppose they did They expected Christ to return before that generation died, too, but we see nineteen centuries of time gone into the past and he still has not come. We have to revise our thinking somewhat in that respect. May we not revise our thinking in some other respects also? Their withdrawal from many of the normal activities of hu-man society, led soon into the monastic view of life. We can see what a curse monasticism was to the individuals who isolated themselves from the world and how utterly it failed to interpret the spirit of Christ who said that “the kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven.” To have its influence upon humanity, Christianity must be set down into the mass of humanity; Christian service must be rendered where there are men and women who need its savin# influence. To withdraw today from legitimate, helpful service to humanity merely because we cannot find the particular activity catalogued in the New Testament is to practise monasticism at least in a mild form!
We are told to “be ready unto every good work.” Did you notice in what connection that is found? Believe it or not, it is found in connection with this very subject of rendering obedience to the civil authorities! Hear it, Titus 3:1 : “Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work.” How can one be ready unto every good work, if he refuses to do some good thing which his government calls or allows him to do, just after that admonition to be obedient to authorities? Not to allow a Christian to participate in any affairs of the government would prevent their making much of their technical and professional skill available for the good of their communities. A water engineer might not help to provide a water supply for his community for most such work is directly controlled by some unit of local government, a civil engineer could not use his skill in the service of society for constructing roads and bridges which are vital in our present manner of living for the smoothest on-go of society; a physician might not place his professional knowledge at the service of his community in the capacity of health officer. This is not a mere supposition for I have a good friend who is county health officer of a Texas county and has rendered valuable service to his community in his official capacity. All postal employees who are members of the church would have to quit carrying the mail, or resign their clerical jobs in the postal department. A few years ago all Christian railroad men, and there are many of them, would have had to resign when the government took over the operation of the railroads. Of course, if the teachings of the New Testament demanded it all these would have to make such a sac-rifice if they continued to be genuine Christians. But the view that government is bad and that a Christian may not participate in it, may not even appeal to it for aid or protection was certainly not held by Paul for we find him on more than one occasion using his Roman citizenship to protect him from abuse. At one time he accepted the freindly gesture of a military officer and actually took advantage of a military guard to get him safely out of Jerusalem. The guard was such as might have done honor to a great personage, made up of seventy cavalrymen and two hundred infantrymen. It is interesting to notice, too, that the enemy which he was thus escaping was not a wicked governmental clique, but a group of his own countrymen who were frenzied l'eligious fanatics. Again the government was the friend of Paul as it had been earlier the friend of Jesus.
We find Paul using the opportunity to defend himself before the court of Felix and then before the authorized court of the land in the presence of Festus. On the latter occasion he made his famous appeal to Caesar. When he was brought for a third time before a governmental tribunal, to present his case to king Agrippa, it was decided that he might have been set free had he not appealed to Caesar. Since he had made that appeal he was sent on to Rome under the dramatic circumstances that we are familiar with. Paul took his case to the Supreme Court of his day!
He had good reason to know that civil government* is a good thing and to teach clearly that Christians are to honor it, obey its laws and support its work with their taxes, dues and customs as he wrote in the well- known thirteenth chapter of his letter to the Romans.
Civil government is the most effective and efficient means for protecting and ministering to society that has yet been devised. Indeed, without it chaos would reign and many genuinely good and beneficial services could not be enjoyed that we now take as a matter of course because we are so accustomed to them.
Government has many functions other than that of punishing criminals and making war. Indeed those represent the minor rather than the ma jor function of government. Without it there would be no such thing as a stable monetary system that even the severest religious isolationist uses quite freely, apparently without any conscientious scruples. Of course we accept the aid of government every day of our lives. None of us could have come here as comfortably as we did without a government that built good roads over which we came, and regulates the railroads over which some may have travelled. We would not even have received the bulletins and letters concerning this lectureship without a government that maintains an efficient post office de-partment. We would not be receiving schooling for our children in a great system of free public schools without it. We have deeds to our property only because a stable government stands back of those deeds and protects each man in the ownership of his property. Our bunking system, our interstate commerce, much of our industrial activity, the value of our insurance policies and a thousand other things are what they are only because they are protected, or supervised by civil government, The government protects us through its controlling the issuance of licenses to physicians to practise medicine; to pharmacists and in the inspection of drugs and foodstuffs; in its setting up standard for weights and measurements and even marriage licenses. Yes, indeed, civil government is a vast deal more than wars and rebellion against God!
We believe that good government is good and is not at all at variance with God’s plan for humanity. The greater number of good men, that is, Christians, who have some part in shaping its policies, the better it will be. It is not true that all men in public office are crooks, nor that one must lose his Christianity in becoming a public official. That many of them do is not proof that they have to, or that all do. Men in public office are subjected to terrific temptations, but so are men in places of trust in business, banking and professional life. Were there enough real Christians in the congres-sional and parliamentary assemblies of the nominally Christian nations, they would have shaped the policies of those governments and directed their activities so that all of the little and oppressed nations would have had their fair opportunity to deal in and have access to the raw materials that God has blessed the earth with; they would have found amicable means for settling disputes, it may be, and it is quite possible that the world would not now be aflame with World War No. 2. This war has come about because of the selfishness of the great nations, our own not excepted. And that condition obtains because non-Christian men were in charge, at least dominant in the affairs of the nations. Remember that the admonition to “be ready unto every good work,” is the concluding phrase of the sentence that begins, “put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient.” To be sure there may be some need for choosing here. If a Christian cannot conscientiously hold the office of sheriff, or some other place that employs physical force, he should not accept such an office. But that does not cut him off from doing those things wherein he can render service to humanity. Only the most ardent advocate of non-participation would refuse the protection of police force if he were in a position te need it to prevent physical harm to himself or family. Paul used the military force of his government to give him protection and seemed not to be conscientiously opposed to it.
It is one who hates his brother that is a murderer, whether he commits the overt act, or only keeps that hatred in his heart. A judge may sentence a man to imprisonment or to death without having the slightest hatred toward that man, as a policeman may use physi-cal force in arresting a criminal without hating the offender. They are merely instruments through which the government accomplishes its purposes and in their using such force they are actually, or may actually be doing good, to prevent further violence and to give protection to those unable to protect themselves. Paul says that government is ordained of God for this pur pose. To say that all human government is evil, that it originates in rebellion against God, and then to say that God sets up some governments to punish others, is to charge God with creating things that are evil. We cannot accept such a charge against God.
Alexander Campbell says in his essay on capital punishment: In the name of reason, why have a sword in the state, and worn by the civil magistrate, if it be unlawful or unchristian to put any one to death on any account whatever? That would be indeed to “bear the sword in vain”; a thing which the apostles themselves would have reprobated.
“It is not the sheriff’s hand—it is not the sword of the executioner. It is the hand of God—it is the sword of his justice that takes away that life which he himself gave, because the criminal has murderously taken away a life which he could not give.”
Even capital punishment is strictly in accordance with the spirit and teaching of the New Testament, says Campbell, One serving on a jury that assesses the penalty of death against a defendant, is in no way in-dividually responsible for the death of that man. The man brought it on himself by violating the law that had death as its penalty. However, if one’s conscience will not permit him to serve on a jury in a criminal case that may involve the death sentence, our government permits him to be excused from such a duty because of his scruples against capital punishment.
Let us notice another objection to this position, It is quoted to us that “no man can serve two masters.” Right! But a man can serve God only as he ministers to humanity and he may do a great deal more effective ministering in temporal affairs through governmental channels, that is in helping to ameliorate harmful con-ditions such as a prevalence of gambling, selling intoxi-cants, or oppressive labor conditions, than he could outside them or through other means.
Again, there is cited the incident of Luke 22:24-30 wherein the disciples were contending about which of them was accounted to be the greatest and Jesus’ saying to them, “The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them; and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.” What bearing has this on our problem? That Christians are not to seek to lord it over their fellow-Ghria- tians is clear. But does that forbid a Christian’s having any supervisory control over or relationship toward another? Even within the church there are elders who have some sort of supervision over others, or at least have a responsibility to see after their welfare. But because there are to be no degrees of greatness within the church, does it follow that a Christian may not be in a position in secular affairs where he will have superiority over another person? If so there can be no such thing as a Christian in business where he must employ help. For immediately he does that, he becomes greater in a business way than the employee. That strict view of the matter would forever prohibit there being such a thing as a college president who is a Christian. No Christian could be an executive in any industry. Nothing would be left to Christians but to be mere clerks and helpers, always in the employ of others with never any supervisory position open to them and in their own business to have nothing larger than they could handle alone. Surely such a severe interpretation is not necessary and cannot be accepted. What Jesus was saying here has to do with the disciples in their relation to each other as followers of Christ and cannot apply to their business affairs: and if not to their business affairs then not to any government office. More Christians carrying their Christian ideals and practices into business and professional life, will make an infinitely better world. The kingdom of heaven is described in prophecy as one wherein its citizens will “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks," and within the kingdom of heaven that condition must pre-vail. Christians are not even to invoke the protection of the government against a fellow-Christian. “Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? .. . But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers. Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another’- (1 Corinthians 6:1; 1 Corinthians 6:6-7). But does that forbid a Christian’s doing his share in the civil government toward making it and his country better? God has one law * for his kingdom, the church, but he also ordains civil government to handle matters that do not come within the affairs or purposes of the church.
Now, let us consider the third and most perplexing problem of all in connection with a Christian's duty toward the state; the one concerning which some have the most difficulty in making a definite decision: the question as to whether a Christian may participate in military service. This is not an academic question; one that we may have to face some day far in the future. We cannot put it off and hope that we may never have to make a decision concerning it for we are squarely up against it iths very day. From every community some have already gone into the army, training themselves for possible action in battle, and others will be called every few days through the next five years. Shall we evade it and continue to give our young men in the church no guidance or help? I wish with all my heart that it were not necessary to make a decision, nor even to discuss it. But it is no longer remote; it is a present and pressing question that demands an honest and fearless dealing with. Here, as in the case of the less severe question about holding office for the government, the conscience must not be violated. Certainly conscience alone is not to be one’s guide for it is a creature of education and alone is not a safe guide. God’s word must be our guide in things spiritual. But there are those who differ even after having read God’s word. Some say that it teaches non-participation; others equally sincere believe that it does permit participation in governmental affairs. But some choice must be made, there being some offices that seem to be good, while others may not be held by a Christian. Then the individual Christian must do only as much as his conscience, taught by God’s word, will permit. For if he does a thing that is against his conscience he sins, for “to him who accounted anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (Romans 14:14).
Similarly, with respect to military service there are many of us, perhaps the majority, who believe that it may not at all be engaged in by Christians. A Christian must risk death and even allow himself to be put to death before becoming a soldier in which service he may be called upon to take the life of a fellowman, if his conscience will not permit him to do it without believing it a sin. If one feels that way about it, then he must have the courage to face the issue and resolutely refuse military service, for if he goes into it against his conscience he is certainly sinning. But there are others who read the same word of God as does the conscientious objector, and they are just as conscientious, but their consciences do not forbid their serving in the military forces of our nation for a defensive war. Only the individual can answer that question for himself before God. If one can accept the position that his service in the army is comparable to service in the courts of the land, or jury service, or on the police force, and believes that in acting as a soldier he is merely part of a larger police force, then no one should condemn him merely because he sees it that way.
We should be profoundly thankful that our government has made ample provision for the conscientious objector. If one cannot conscientiously participate in combatant service, he will be assigned to some non-combatant branch of the service. If he cannot do even that conscientiously, he will be assigned to some branch of industry under the supervision of civilians. The armed forces of the nation are in many ways comparable to our police forces. I’ve never heard any-one object to having policemen to maintain order in our local communities and even use force if necessary to quell a marauder to protect the peaceful citizens of a community. Nearly all of us, I dare say. are willing to see a strong enough police force in any city or town to take care of the gangsters who may be on the loose in those places. Now when gangsterism grows into international proportions, why should not those nations which love peace and order and freedom use a
national or international, police force to resist those gangsters?
If our worship were disturbed by a gang of racketeers we would welcome the police arriving and forcibly restraining those outlaws from interfering with our peaceful worship. If the criminals should try to make us leave off worshipping, or worship only as they chose to direct it, we should not at all object to police power restoring our religious freedom to us. Why, then, should we object to having force used in resisting the international racketeers who threaten to deprive us of our religious and civic freedom.
Again, I say, if there are those who have that view-point and can conscientiously become part of that police power that does try to maintain our freedom, why should those who cannot see it that way condemn those who do? Perhaps we do not, but we are likely to consider them as not Christians and may even be tempted to think of them as violent breakers of God's law, merely because they do not see it as we do who will not under any circumstances use physical-force to oppose an enemy.
Perhaps it might be more in the spirit of the Master not to demand peace at any price, but to seek righteous-ness at any cost!
We do not see alike on many other subjects. On very few questions could one find a hundred or more brethren who see eye to eye. Take a dozen eontroversial subjects and very few would agree exactly on all that dozen items. Mind you, I'm not talking about the first principles upon which we do agree, but about such subjects as a Christian’s obligation to the state.
We need a great deal of charily in thinking about each other and in dealing with one another. Never should we allow any hatred or ill-feeling to spring up in our hearts toward our brethren. Every one should examine these questions for himself as taught in the Bible, then make up his own mind as to what God would have him do and be. Once he has determined for himself what the Bible teaches, he should have the courage to live true to his convictions but not condemn others who may not have the same set of convictions that he himself cherishes. With such love toward each other and a sincere desire to be helpful to all, we will possibly agree on more things and can at least love and help those who disagree with us.