The King's Church in Ilford
The following is the text of the talk given on 24th June by Robin Hawkins
-
"A Christian's Responsibility In Society"
Reading: Matt 5:38-42 & Rom 13:1-5
We looked at this passage together a few weeks ago from a personal level. How should we as individuals respond to those who would do us evil? We saw that Jesus was forbidding revenge and retaliation, and we looked at principles that challenged such attitudes towards those who offend us through loss of pride, possessions, time and money.
But I was aware that there was more to be said on this subject. We are members of a society that goes beyond the church, and we have responsibility to one another in that society. How should we respond to crime - to the man who wants to break into my house, or, God forbid, abuse our children. There is a distinction between personal attitudes, and our responses as a society. Governments have God-given authority within our society for the control of evil, so that we can live peacefully together. It is there for the protection of others. This doesn't mean they always get it right; it does mean that our society is a lot better to live in than if there were no government at all.
Bearing in mind the "one in authority" is God's servant, then we as Believers should submit to our government, as unto the Lord. Paul goes onto to say that the government "does not bear the sword in vain". In other words, far from "not resisting an evil man" the government has God-given authority to do just that - with weapons if necessary. The difference is that the "ones in authority" - be they police or judges, should not be retaliating out of anger, or out of a desire for revenge, but should be handing out justice impartially. This is why the figure holding the scales of justice over the Old Bailey is blindfolded. She does not show favour to one, or bias against another.
So how should we respond to crime? From a personal point of view we need to forgive the criminal, refusing to retaliate, and renouncing revenge. But in order to protect others, we need to do what we can to ensure the criminal is arrested for his crimes and suitably punished. To stand by and allow murder and violence would un-loving and irresponsible.
But Governments too are accountable to God. They don't have unlimited authority. They have no right to forbid the preaching of the Gospel, eg. When the Sanhedrin tried to forbid Peter and the apostles to speak about Jesus, his reply was, "We have to obey God rather than man." Paul, when he was flogged illegally by the authorities at Philippi, refused to allow them to get away with it.
The question that's really been buzzing with me is what God thinks about our taking this to the next step. If God approves of governments using force to protect their citizens from internal threats, does He approve of them using force against external ones. In other words are there times when God approves of one nation going to war with another nation.
If we look at this biblically, we've got to say that we cannot separate Jesus, the Prince of Peace, from Jehovah God in the OT. There were times then that God sent his people to war. There were times too when He didn't, but they went anyway. When God sent them, they won; when they fought wars He didn't send to fight, they lost.
So we've got to ask: Was God favouring the Israelites against the other nations?
Was it because they were righteous, and the other nations weren't?
Wasn't God being unfair in driving out those nations who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time in Canaan, to make room for his people?
I want us to look carefully at the Bible says about all this. You will need your Bibles so I do hope you've brought them.
Firstly: Why did God choose the Israelites in the first place? Was it because they were bigger, or more powerful, or more righteous than the other nations? It was none of these things. Turn to Deut. 7:7. It was grace and grace alone.
Secondly, did he send them to destroy these other nations because they were more righteous than them? Look at Deut 9:4-5a. So they didn't have the moral high ground, or any right to look down on those other nations. They were simply God's means of judgement to those nations.
Thirdly, did God drive those nations out just to make room for His people?
No He didn't. Look with me at Gen 15:16. God wouldn't let His people go into Canaan because at that time the inhabitants did not deserve to be thrown out. He foresaw a time when their evil would become so bad that not only would the land itself be defiled, but that it would "vomit them out". This is a graphic metaphor, but it means that they had become so evil that the only way to remove their evil was for those peoples to be destroyed.
We have to remember there was no remedy for sin at that time; and there was little restraint on those nations. They were up to their neck in the occult, in total bondage to satan, and had sunk to the level of sacrificing their children to Moluch - a demonic spirit. They weren't just bad. They were totally depraved, and everything they touched was spiritually defiled - which was why sometimes God said to the Israelites, destroy them completely. If He hadn't, the people of God would have been contaminated, and God's plan of salvation threatened.
So God sent His people to war when the only way that evil could be removed was by destroying the people doing it. The Israelites were not acting out of self-righteousness; they were not retaliating in anger; they were not doing it out of revenge. They were simply God's instrument of judgement.
It is out of these principles that Bible Scholars over the centuries have developed the idea that there are times when it is right to go to war. When there is a Just Cause - a wrong perpetrated that needs to be put right. So you'll hear the term: Just War being used. As scholars have developed this idea, its main principles have been: 1. There must be a just cause.
2. There must be a proportionate response to the evil perpetrated.
3. There must be a reasonable hope of a successful outcome.
If you do a search on the internet, you'll find other conditions that make a Just War, but those are the main three.
The outcome is not always clearcut. People used Just War principles to both support the war in Iraq, and oppose it. Other examples are easier to determine. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an injustice that needed to be put right. It had the authority of the UN, and a proportionate response produced a successful outcome. The same could be said of the Falklands War. The 2nd World War was instigated by an evil so great that only its destruction would stop it. The motives for the 1st WW, and the Boer War are more questionable. Were they just causes? - Probably not.
When I told Julie what I wanted to talk about today, she looked at me doubtfully, and said, "You're brave! What do you want to talk about that for?" I replied, "Firstly, because it's in the text we're studying; and secondly, I think we as Christians need to be informed about what the Bible says on these things so that when they come up in conversation, we've got some idea of what God thinks about them.
Our duty as citizens may require us to use force to restrain evil people. A Christian police officer may be required to use force in peforming his duty. A Christian soldier may be required to kill in the course of his duty. A Christian judge may be required to send people to prison. All of us as Christian citizens may be required to use force to restrain evil and protect others. The reality these days, is that we have to entrust our lives into God's hands when we do.
There is bound to be a tension within us about this. Sometimes personal motives get mixed up with our duty as citizens. If somebody we loved got killed in a bomb outrage, most of us would be screaming for blood. Forgiveness is costly, letting go of revenge is hard, but it's the only way forward if we are not be destroyed by it. Nevertheless, it is right to do all we can to see the perpetrators brought to justice.
One man who got the balance right was Dr. Martin Luther King who made a stand against civil injustice in the USA. He refused to be motivated by revenge or malice, but spoke out fearlessly for black people in the US. He endured unjust suffering for the sake of righteousness for 13 years until his assassination. At his funeral, Dr. Ben Mays said this:
If any man knew the meaning of suffering, King knew. House bombed; living day by day for 13 yrs under constant threats of death; maliciously accused of being a Communist; falsely accused of being insincere...; stabbed by a member of his own race; slugged in a hotel lobby; jailed over twenty times; occasionally deeply hurt because friends betrayed him - and yet this man had no bitterness in his heart, no rancour in his soul; no revenge in his mind; and he went up and down the length and breadth of this world, preaching non-violence and the redemptive power of love.
Jesus calls you and I to suffering love in the face of evil. By His own example on the cross, He showed how only with such an attitude can we ultimately triumph over evil. It may have looked as though evil had triumphed on the cross, but the real victory belonged to our Lord Jesus. The cross is the only power in the world which proves that suffering love can avenge and vanquish evil.
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Psalm 19:1