November 16, 2008

Cursing the Ruler

Exodus 22:28

Today is one of those sermons that I didn't know I was going to preach, but it jumped on me at the last minute. Something that you need to realize is that preachers get convicted too. This was one of those occasions where I was reading something, and suddenly realized - "Hey! - I'm doing that! And I need to quit! And most of my friends in church are doing it too! Oh, wow!"

I had it all planned out what I was going to preach on, but it wasn't really coming together, and then I read this particular article and - boom - I realized why the first one wasn't coming together, because that wasn't what I needed to be preaching on. One thing about this little church, as far as I know, most all of us are pretty like minded in how we see political stuff, which means I can preach on politics, and everybody sort of smiles and nods. It's almost too easy.

Not any more. Today is the day nobody smiles or nods. Or maybe you decide that I'm some kind of spoil sport. Or - just maybe I'm seeing the Word of God correctly and you'll get convicted like I was. Because my premise for today's sermon is that whether you are happy with how the election turned out, or whether you are unhappy with how the election turned out, either way, it is important that we as Christians show respect to the office of the President.

And here's why - if you have your Bibles with you today, and I hope you do, turn with me to Exodus 22 and verse 28. We will spend some time in the Bible, and then I'll share with you the article that got to me, and then we'll make some practical applications. In Exodus 20, God gives Israel the law, and then in the next several chapters, He gives them corollaries to the law, applications of the law, and how to deal with things that are not real obvious just from reading the Ten Commandments. Some of the things in chapter 22 deal with money, some with theft, lending, loss and restitution, and then comes verse 28 - "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people."

Well, isn't that just ducky? Here I had sort of assumed I would spend the next four years mocking and abusing the politicians that I don't think should be in office, and then I run up on an article and a Scripture verse that say "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." (Sigh) Yes, Lord. As You wish.

So what does this verse mean? If you look up the word "gods" in the Hebrew, it is elohim, and this word is used to refer to Jehovah God, it is also used to refer to the gods of the Gentiles, and also to the local magistrates, the people who were judges over cities and towns. It is used three ways, which means that the only safe way to understand what the verse actually means is by the context.

So we'll go back earlier in the chapter, verse 7, "If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.
:8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, - the elohim - to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor's goods.
:9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challenges to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; - the elohim -and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor."

So throughout this chapter, the Hebrew word elohim refers to the civil magistrates, but then you get to verse 28, and in this case it says, "Thou shalt not revile the gods, -elohim- nor curse the ruler of thy people." If you read different commentaries, some of them say it refers to God, and others say it refers to the civil magistrates. I think it is a Hebrew play on words and it refers to both, because the civil judges in Israel stood in the place of God as judges over the people.

Israel was a theocracy, a nation ruled by God, and the local judges and rulers stood in the place of God. So if you were to revile or despise the judge or ruler of your town, then by extension, very likely you were also despising God and His choice of judges and rulers. If you were to curse the ruler of your people, then you were coming very close to blasphemy, because if you curse the ruler who was appointed by God, then you are saying that God really messed up.

Ok, that makes sense, but that was an Old Testament theocracy, we are not in a theocracy, we are in a republic that works through democratic processes, so what does that mean to us? Anything? We need to know. Let's think about what Paul did when he was brought before the high priest, Acts 23:1 "Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day."
:2 And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.
:3 Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?"
:4 And those who stood by said, "Do you revile God's high priest?"
:5 Then Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people." - And here Paul obviously quotes the passage in Exodus 22. But there is a problem: Paul was speaking here as a Jew among Jews, all of them were accepting that this was legally an Old Testament type of situation, so this doesn't really deal with our modern situation.

Lets look at another passage, 1st Peter 2:17, "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king." Honor the king. What if the king is Nero? Because Nero was the king in power when Peter wrote this, and Peter probably died because of Nero.

Let's back up a few verses, back to verse 13, Peter says "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."

Something that probably doesn't occur to us is that Peter was writing not just to Gentiles, but also to converted Jews, and since those Jews were used to living under a theocracy, they would have had a really negative opinion of Gentile judges and rulers. If you are a Jew, used to living under a government where God is head of the chain of command, and all the judges and rulers are seen as being part of that hierarchy that leads to God, how would that probably affect you in your attitude toward the Gentile governments? You would tend to inherently despise the government of the Gentiles, because if they worship heathen gods, then their judges and rulers are part of the chain of command that leads not up to Jehovah God, but to demons, which means that they are all in league with demons, because that is your understanding of how government works, right? True, but...

Peter tells us no, you cannot have that attitude toward government. Even in a heathen culture, God uses government for the punishment of evil doers, even though the government itself might be evil. Even an evil, corrupt government is way better than anarchy, even Rome under Nero is better than a government run by barbarians. The Iraqis under Saddam Hussein were better off than the people in Mogadishu living under the rule of bandits and warlords.

Then verses 15 & 16 tell us that even as citizens of a bad government, we can still have a good attitude. And Peter brings this out for our sake, because the attitude of those first century Jews towards government was a lot like the attitude some of us have toward government. Some of us spend a lot of time watching what the government does, how it operates, and how it corrupts people. And over the years, some of us have come to have a very bad attitude towards government, especially certain segments of government. Kind of like the attitude of the Jews who were living in Gentile societies. Jews who in some cases had been converted and were part of the early Christian churches, living in Gentile cultures. Are you with me?

Now that we have the context, and we have put ourselves into that context, let's think through what Peter meant when he said that the believers need to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. If you lived in a culture where loyalty to the government meant swearing an oath to Caesar, or that you needed to pour out an oblation of wine to Caesar, and you wouldn't do it because Caesar was regarded as a god, and you as a Christian were not willing to equate Caesar with Christ, then you were already under suspicion. For disloyalty. Or treason.

Then on top of that, if there were Jews in your congregation, and everybody knew that Jews despised Gentile rulers, because the Jews thought the Gentile rulers and judges were the servants of the heathen gods, then it was a logical assumption that you and all the other Christians were like the Jews - people who probably despised the government. The people in your culture probably wondered about you. What kind of cult are you? Are you all a bunch of anarchists? Wanting to overthrow the government? Take over, and set up some sort of theocracy with Jesus Christ as your king?

Did you know that there is a whole segment of Christianity that actually wants to do that? Right now? Remember D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Church? A godly man, he's dead now, not a bad church, but the theology of that denomination teaches that it is the job of Christians to bring in the kingdom of Christ on earth. So it's not surprising if ignorant people who don't really have any grasp of the gospel, or of what the Bible teaches, should see Christianity as some sort of right-wing cult that wants to take over the government. And then you have the Rosie O'Donnell types who see Bible believing Christians as a bigger threat than Islam. Ignorant people, as Peter says, but, that's how it is... And how it has been for a long time.

Peter by the Holy Spirit tells us that the cure for that sort of foolishness is to let it be known that you are in subjection to the government, that you are not a troublemaker, that you are a person who is subject to authority, and you want to be an asset to the community. "With well doing you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." By doing well, by obviously being the servants of God, by glorifying Jesus Christ in our community. That's what we do, that's who we are. Or at least it better be!

Now I want to take a break from sharing my thoughts with you and instead share with you the article that got me started in this direction. It is by Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Minnesota. Maybe you will agree with him, maybe not, but let me share his article with you, and we'll go from there.

Quote: The election is over. The candidate who was favored by most Christian conservatives did not win. So what comes next?

In one way, the election of Barack Obama is very good news for biblical Christians. It gives us the opportunity to demonstrate how our Christianity affects real life. We simply have to live what we say we believe.

For example, we say that we believe in the providence of God. Without ever negating genuine human freedom, God superintends and governs all that occurs. His will is sovereign, not only within the world of nature but also within the world of human events. Nothing ever happens without His knowledge and permission, and He permits nothing that does not advance His plan, display His glory, and (at least eventually) produce great good for His people.

Specifically, God is sovereign in setting up nations and appointing their rulers. He raised up Nebuchadnezzar as an instrument of discipline for Judah. He humbled Nebuchadnezzar when that most powerful of kings became arrogant. Then God raised him up again and established him on his throne. God appoints people like Cyrus, Alexander, and even Nero. He exalts them for a moment and then topples them at His pleasure. We should never fall into the conceit of thinking that we simply choose our own leaders.

Each ruler is appointed by God, which means that each is a minister of God for good. They may not always be good people, but we are better off with them than we would be without them. Nothing is worse than anarchy. Without laws and the power to enforce them, the powerful are free to prey upon the weak. Restraint vanishes and only brutality remains. Even a very wicked ruler who persecutes the church is better than no ruler at all. Diocletian tried to stamp out Christianity, but he also maintained the very conditions that (humanly) allowed it to survive.

Because civil authorities are also God’s appointees, Christians owe them certain duties. First, we owe them our prayers. In fact, we are explicitly commanded to pray for kings and for all those who are in authority. Our opportunity to enjoy quiet and peaceable lives is directly connected to these prayers.

Christians also owe submission and obedience to civil authorities. Because their offices are established by God, they have a right to our honor, fear, tribute, and custom. At minimum, the office itself must be treated with deference and respect, regardless of the worthiness of the individual who holds the office.

Respect for the office is not merely a moral concern, but also a pragmatic one. In order to perform rightly the functions of the office, the person who occupies it must have the ability to govern. Once the office is held in contempt, then the official either loses this ability (thus permitting anarchy to flourish) or else sustains it through the use of force.

Something like this has happened in the recent history of the American presidency. William Jefferson Clinton brought scandal to the office—not so much through his philandering, which has been typical of many powerful men, but through his willingness to perjure himself in order to cover it up. Many conservatives saw an opportunity in the president’s weakness. In order to thwart his agenda, they attacked his person. Whether or not this strategy was justified, the net result was a weakening of the office of president. Personal attacks upon the president turned out to be an excellent way of thwarting presidential leadership. During the subsequent presidency of George W. Bush, political discourse has been transformed from disagreement over the president’s policies into abuse of the president’s person.

This trajectory has to be stopped, and conservatives are in the ideal position to stop it. President Obama’s policies may be good, or they may be bad, but he must be treated as an honorable man. More than that, his office must be given the respect and deference that it needs and deserves. He must be given the opportunity to succeed, knowing that he has the loyalty and support of the American people behind him—and that includes American Christians.

Does this mean that we are obligated to support specific policies when we believe them to be wrong? The answer to that question is an obvious no. But we must resurrect the lost notion that was once called “loyal opposition.” We will no doubt oppose certain policies, perhaps vigorously. But opposition to the policy must not be turned into opposition to the man or opposition to the office. The president has to be left with the ability to govern. If he loses that ability, then the entire country loses, including Christian conservatives.

The presidency tends to run through cycles. The scandals of Richard Nixon were followed by the ineptness of Jimmy Carter, but Ronald Reagan brought dignity back to the office. Now the scandals of Bill Clinton have been followed by the ineptness of George W. Bush, and we are waiting for the man who will again raise the office of the presidency to its rightful dignity. Perhaps Barack Obama is that man. Certainly he must be given the opportunity to succeed.

We do not know how President Obama will govern. We do know that some of his proposals will be objectionable, and we conservatives shall oppose them. Nevertheless, it is time to remember that we have no right to order a nation if we cannot discipline ourselves, and self-discipline means acting with restraint even when facing strong disagreement.

When Barack Obama is inaugurated, he will not simply be the president of the Democrats, the liberals, or the minorities. He will be the president of the entire nation, the president of these United States. He will be my president, and I intend to fulfill my biblical obligations toward him.

Close quotes. And thinking about what Brother Bauder says here, it occurs to me that we as a society have really gone downhill over this last generation in our ability to disagree without being disagreeable. So let me throw out a few ideas and then talk about them, and then make some practical applications. We live in a culture that has become somewhat schizophrenic, on the one hand it demands free speech for all, because it wants to believe that all viewpoints are equally valid, and on the other hand, it seeks to suppress viewpoints that it disagrees with. Now we know that schizophrenia is a form of mental illness, and since we all live in this society, then all of us are at least slightly infected, so let me see if I can come up with a few things to make us all saner.

First, there is more and more a tendency in our society that if you don't like the message, you kill the messenger. That's wrong.
Second, we Americans are becoming more like the rest of the world, in that we are drawing back from the idea of free speech, when the other guy disagrees with you, we tend to want to silence him. That's wrong.
And third, we have substituted using democratic discourse for coming to the knowledge of truth. And that's wrong also.

I'm not sure when I first began to realize or understand the first one, but it works around the idea that if the other guy says something that you don't agree with, if you can make him out to be an idiot, then you win. I remember years ago, when I would go over to the school to work out, there was this particular teenage girl there, and she had perfected this technique to a T. I don't remember her name, but if you said something that she didn't like, or agree with, or approve of, she would look down her nose at you, and get this sort of quizzical expression on her face, and then she would say "You are so stupid." And her delivery was perfect. She resolved her disagreements by mocking her opponent into silence. And I think that we as a culture are going further and further in that direction. We have seen it in politics for so many years that we take it for granted.

I don't know how the rest of the world does politics, but in this country, any time there is a politician that you don't agree with, you try and make them out to be an idiot.
And this technique is spreading into all sorts of venues, business, sales, you try to make someone within a certain demographic look like an idiot so that you get the approval of another demographic.

Something I have noticed for a long time are sexist commercials, either the husband or the wife is depicted as being incompetent, while the spouse of the opposite sex is presented as being so very much smarter and wiser, and that spouse approves of what ever it is that the commercial wants you to buy. Fidelity Investments Group has been doing various commercials of this nature on Fox News, and they always present the man as some weak, bumbling, dufus who has a wise and no-nonsense wife, or else we get treated to a sales pitch from a hyper-competent female sales agent who makes up for her lame male boss. But they must be connecting with somebody, because ad agencies get paid big bucks for commercials that work, and if those commercials didn't appeal to somebody, we probably wouldn't be seeing them. Which tells me that a lot of people approve of seeing other people being humiliated and put down. Even if it's someone close to them. Like maybe a spouse.

I don't think Jesus would do that. Which means that I don't think we ought to be doing that either. If we don't like the message, then we need to find a civil and decent way to disagree with it, because it is not Christlike to kill the messenger when we don't like the message.

The second thing that we need to be aware of, and be cautious of, is that if we don't like the message, that doesn't give us the right to silence the messenger. This last summer several of us went to see the movie Expelled, which was an excellent movie, I commend it to you and suggest that all of you need to see it, it dealt with the educational establishment's suppression of intelligent design. Scientists who recognize intelligent design as valid and reasonable get denied tenure, teachers who present it as a viable alternative to evolution lose their jobs, because since evolutionists can't refute the message, they need to silence the messenger.

Now that the election is over, there is already talk of reinstituting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," as a way for the party in power to make it harder for the other party to get it's message out. The "Fairness Doctrine" means requiring conservative radio and tv stations to keep track of how much time they give to conservatives and then require them to air an equal amount of liberal time. Which would have the practical effect of eliminating conservative broadcasting due to the incredible hassle it would create for those stations. Obviously those of us who value the conservative message getting out need to be alert to keep this from happening, but we also need to be alert that this mindset doesn't infect us toward those we disagree with.

One of our church members got in trouble this past year for sharing the gospel at work because the person he was talking with didn't like what he had to say. So she went to management and got him in trouble. This was a case of "If you don't like the message, silence the messenger, and maybe - in effect - kill the messenger too. Get him fired."

Obviously as Christians we don't like it when we are on the receiving end of such treatment, but we also need to be very sure that we don't do others that way. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As Peter says, "having your conversation - or conduct - honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation." Honorable conduct. Doing what is Christlike. That does not say that we can't ask those whom we disagree with to play by the same rules we do, we ought to ask of others what we freely concede to them, but either way, we need to glorify God in what we do and how we do it. Amen?

And finally, I want to talk a bit about substituting democratic discourse for truth. And here's what I mean by that, earlier I said that we live in a culture that wants to believe that all viewpoints are equally valid. In practice, all of us know that's not true, there is no one in the country that acts like it's true, for instance nobody really thinks that the Taliban's viewpoint is as good as ours, but nonetheless, that's the politically correct way to think, and that's what gets promoted. But not all speech is created equal. Everybody has a right to be heard, but not everything that gets said is true. And let me give you a fairly common but especially insidious example of that:

Have you ever been to a Bible study where everybody sat around and shared their opinions of what they thought the Scripture meant? And meanwhile, some of the people there were new believers, some of them had a very secular world view, others had come out of a background that taught something very unscriptural, some of them were unbelievers, yet their objective was to come to a conclusion of what the Scripture meant based on a sort of democratic consensus. What's wrong with that picture?

The question gets asked, "What does this Scripture mean to you?" What difference does it make what the Scripture means to you? That is an irrelevant question. The real question ought to be, "What does the Scripture mean?" Period. If you don't get that right, nothing else matters.

Now once you know that, it is good to go ahead and ask, "How does this truth apply to my situation? How should I behave or think in light of this Scripture truth?" That is a good question. That's valid. But if a bunch of us were to get together and each of say, "What does this Scripture mean to you?", we would end up with a nice democratic, touchy-feely mush, that may or may not have anything to do with truth or reality.

This also spills over into politics. This is why we have "bipartisanship." What does the Constitution mean to you? Not what does the Constitution say, but what does it mean to you? This is why we have seen judges in effect rewriting the Constitution by "legislating from the bench," they interpret the Constitution according to what they think it ought to say, and what they think it would be good for the Constitution to mean, and not according to what it says. We see the effects that this has on our country, things that would not have been permissible a hundred years ago are common now, and it's not good, we need to be very careful that we don't do that same thing when it comes to understanding the Bible. It doesn't matter what we want the Bible to say, or what we think it might be good for the Bible to say, we need to know what the Bible actually says, and then put that into practice. And a democratic consensus has nothing to do with that.

In conclusion, I think there is no better way to sum this up than to read what the apostle Paul says about it, and then read through what Peter says one more time, so first Paul, Romans 13:1, "Let every soul be subject to higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, but the existing authorities have been ordained by God.
:2 So that the one resisting authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and the ones opposing will receive judgment to themselves.
:3 For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad. And do you desire not to fear the authority? Do the good, and you will have praise from it;
:4 for it is a servant of God to you for the good. But if you practice evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to the one practicing bad things.
:5 Because of this, it is necessary to be subject, not only on account of wrath, but also on account of conscience.
:6 For on this account you also pay taxes, for they are ministers of God, always giving attention to this very thing.
:7 Then give to all their dues: to the one due tax, the tax; to the one due tribute, the tribute; to the one due fear, the fear; to the one due honor, the honor."

And then finally, Peter, once again 1st Peter 2, and verse eleven, "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
:17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."

And pray for him, pray for our president, that God will turn the heart of the king, that we get a decent man, and not a Nero. Amen? Amen.