What is the purpose of Government?

I grew up right next to an Air Force Base and there were F-15s and F-16s taking off over my house all the time. There were also a lot of air shows where you could watch shows in the air sit in the cockpit of planes on the ground. Well if you’ve ever been in a cockpit of a fighter jet like at an airshow or anything, in front of you is what’s called the “Heads Up Display.” The Heads Up Display or “HUD” is everything you need to fly the plane while keeping your head up. All the screens and instruments that you need to understand ho to fly the plane are in the HUD.

When it comes to theology and doctrine we sort of have Heads Up Displays too. So depending on what theological topic you’re exploring, there are certain texts of Scripture that are going to be in your Heads up Display — Scriptures you need to understand the issue.

When it comes to getting a biblical understanding of government…

What’s going too be in your Heads Up Display is: Genesis 9:6, 1 Peter 2:13-17, Titus 3:1-2 and Romans 13:1-7

Let’s take a look at Romans 13:1-7 a little deeper…

What follows is a condensed summary of five mistaken views about Christian influence on politics that Wayne Grudem has described in his books Politics According to the Bible. At 600 plus pages, this one is quite the doorstop. However, if you want to go deeper into these ideas about government and religion, this book is one of the best and surprisingly most readable introductions you will find.

1. Government Should Force Religion

This view sees the government compelling a particular religion upon its people. So think the European Wars between the Protestants and the Catholics and some of the Islamic kingdoms and caliphates throughout history. This view is ultimately about state-sponsored religion.

Advocates for this view would say, “This is the religion of England. This is the religion of France. This is the religion of Iran. This is the religion of Saudi Arabia.” And so on and so forth.

Historical Problems

One of the biggest problems with this view is political turnover. For example, when Henry VIII came to power in England and started the church of England, he effectively beginning state-sponsored Protestantism in England. His daughter, Queen Mary, takes the throne after him. History remembers her as “Bloody Mary” not because she really liked tomato juice but because she re-instituted state-sponsored Catholicism and started persecuting Protestants. Well, after Mary died her sister Elizabeth came to power and switched everything back to Protestantism and starts persecuting Catholics!

So because of this type of madness over the centuries, this view has been largely rejected in Christian thinking. Most, with the exception of some crazy of course 1, would hold that the best hope that people who love God’s Word and love God’s people and want to freely experience them booth is freedom of religion.

That’s in large part why the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission filed a friend of the court brief for the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge in Bernards Township, New Jersey in 2017. The Islamic society met all the requirements and permits but the city kept voting down their application to build a mosque, so the ERLC along with the National Association of Evangelicals and others, wrote a letter to the court supporting their right to build a mosque.

Why would they do that?

Simply because if the government can prevent Muslims from building mosques in New Jersey, its not a very far step for the government to prevent Baptists from building churches in Boston and San Francisco.

Now, was that episode controversial in our circles? You bet.

Do I personally want to see mosques go up in our community? No of course not.

But consider what Russell Moore, the President of the ERLC, said at the 2016 SBC Annual Meeting: “A government that has the power to outlaw people from assembling together and saying what they believe – that does not turn people into Christians, that turns people into pretend Christians and it sends them straight to Hell.”

If history has taught us one thing, its that we do not want a state-sponsored religion.

Spiritual Formation Problems

As Dr. Moore essentially said in the above quote, this view if faulty from a spiritual formation perspective as well. Heart change can’t be legislated. Contrary to popular Christian opinion, morality can be legislated. A speed limit will keep some from going 95 on Grand Parkway. DUI laws will deter some from driving drunk.

However, that doesn’t create worshippers. Is a person saved because they don’t drive drunk? Or because they don’t cheat on your taxes? Or because they don’t murder people? Is a person saved because they don’t do those things and follow the law?

No. A person saved by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit of God so for someone to say that the government should force religion on it people is absurd. Taking it even further, to say that we are a Christian nation is absurd.

A nation can be built on Christian morals. A nation can be built on a Christian worldview. A nation can be built on Christian ideals. However, a nation cannot be defined as a Christian nation because there will be those in that nation who will not be believers in Christ and if you create an environment like that, not only will there an anti-biblical persecution for those who do not hold the government’s view as we have seen throughout history. But further, the very essence of salvation would be diluted to a broadly cultural Christianity.

So the government should force religion upon its people…we reject that view.

2. Government Should Exclude Religion

This view sees religion as totally separate from government altogether with no overlap whatsoever between the two. This is overall the dominant view of secular society.

This is the water in which we’re swimming. Barna Research Group found in August 2015 that when given this statement, “People can believe whatever they want, was long as those beliefs don’t affect society,” 79% of US Adults agreed. And catch this, 61% of practicing Christians agreed.

This is the view that would say its fine for you to believe whatever you want to believe, but let’s keep it in the private realm so we can all live together in peace and harmony. Let it give you strength and inspiration in your private life but don’t bring it into the public square and don’t argue your point of view or values based on your particular religious belief. The reason is that we have to go with what works in society.

There’s a big problem with that though.

I know it sounds plausible. But it’s actually incredibly hypocritical and just doesn’t work and here’s the reason why: It is impossible to separate deeply held beliefs with the way you interact with the world.

So think about this. What is religion?

You say, “Well religion is a set of beliefs. You go to a service each week and you sing songs and listen to a guy drone on forever…”

No. No. What’s really religion in the fullest sense?

Religion is simply a set of answers to the big questions in life.

Why are we here? What is right and wrong for human beings? What’s wrong with the world and what will fix it?

Nobody can operate in the world without some semblance of answers to those questions and those answers are inherently religious. Someone can’t prove those things in a lab.

Whatever your answers are, its essentially a religious belief. People may not see it as a religious belief but by what defines religion, it is. So its impossible to do this…to leave your religion in private and functionally have government and religion as totally separate…

You can’t do it.

Tim Keller has a really interesting illustration for this in Reason for God. He says to think about something in the realm of government like divorce laws. Surely, most people would say in a secular society like ours that if you're working on divorce laws, you don’t bring your religion to work.

But here’s the thing — that all depends on what you think is the purpose of marriage.

Anybodies view of the purpose of marriage is rooted in deeply held beliefs about human nature and human happiness. So for example, if you ask someone in an individualistic, Western society, they will most likely believe that the needs of the individual is more important than the needs of the group or the needs of the family. And they will see the purpose of marriage as the happiness and emotional fulfillment of the adults who enter into it.

See every Rom-Com ever made.

So, when you hold these views, divorce laws will be lenient and easy.

But what if you asked someone in a traditional society? In traditional societies they believe the family is more important than the individual. The family is much more important than individual happiness and the purpose of marriage is to create safe and secure space for the nurturing of children for the extended family and society as a whole. And if you believe that the group or the family is more important than the individual…well then your going to make divorce really hard.

So do you see it?

You can’t come to any conclusions about what will work in something like divorce except on the basis of deeply held beliefs about human happiness and fulfillment. So it’s actually impossible to keep your deeply held beliefs about human nature and happiness, dare we say your religious beliefs, and the government totally separate.

3. Government is Evil

4. We should do evangelism without politics

5. We should do politics without evangelism

1. At the worst of the crazy would be examples like the Muslim genocides in the Balkans in the 90s or Islamic kingdoms and caliphates that still operate under Sharia Law.