FIRST LESSON: I Samuel 8:1-22
SECOND LESSON: Matthew 6:10, Romans 13:1-6
July 5, 2009
SERMON REQUEST: What is the biblical understanding of the relationship between government and individual liberty?
“Who’s In Charge?”
Sermon © Lisa C Farrell
A young mother picked her four-year-old son up from pre-school one day. Every day she looked forward to him filling her in on his day. One day he jumped into the car and she could tell from his face that he was bursting with a question. “Mommy,” he asked, “what do birds have to do with the American flag?” Well of course she thought he was talking about the eagle on top of the flag pole, so she proceeded to tell him all about the national bird. “I know all of that, Mommy,” he said, “I'm talking about the pigeons! What do the pigeons have to do with the flag?”
This totally threw her. Being at a loss she asked, “What do you mean?”
He rolled his eyes and sighed in exasperation. How could grown-ups be
so dense? Then, very slowly so she could understand, he explained. “Every day we start out by saying the prayer to the flag and in it we say, “’I lead the pigeons to the flag.’ I just wanted to know why?”
I haven’t led any pigeons to the flag lately, and I certainly don’t PRAY to it, but it does remind me that I’m an American. I hope you all had a happy 4 th of July!
This Sunday is our first sermon request Sunday. I found it an appropriate topic given the timing: What is the biblical understanding of the
relationship between government and individual liberty? Unlike everyone else, this person even gave me the scriptures he wanted me to cover! So here goes.
The Old Testament witness about government is mixed. There are two distinct lines of thought that can be discerned, one pro-monarchy, and one decidedly anti-monarchy. The pro-monarchy tradition idealized the kingship of
David. Our reading from this morning demonstrates the anti-monarchy opinion. In it we encounter the prophet Samuel. As wise and godly a man as
Samuel was, he did not do well in raising his own sons. Both of his sons,
Abijah and Joel accepted bribes and perverted justice. So the elders came up with an idea. They came to Samuel and said, “You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”
1

Samuel was not at all happy about the request. Until that point Israel governed itself in a non-centralized tribal fashion under a system of judges. It was not structurally tight. It was also fairly unique in the ancient world. The advantage was that there was greater flexibility and individual freedom. The disadvantage was military. A decentralized government could not quickly pull together when under attack.
Samuel tried to warn the people just what a king would do. A king would take the best of the best for his service, and leave the rest. A king would take their sons and daughters and put them to work. A king would tax them and make the people like slaves. But the people would not listen. They wanted a king. Just like children they wanted to be like everyone else. They were fixated on what they thought they had to gain, stating, “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” For some strange reason it did not occur to them that the king wouldn’t be fighting these battles alone.
While Israel governed itself under priestly laws and petty kings it had varying degrees of success. It was, in the large scheme of things, a very small fish in a very big pond. It was only a matter of time before it was conquered by a series of empires and no longer had a say about what form of government it had. Except for extreme circumstances like exile, for the ordinary person in day-to-day matters, not that much changed, however. As long as tribute was paid they were left to themselves. By the time of Jesus, the ruling imperial force was Rome, so it is interesting that Paul addresses his most specific words about government to the Christians living in Rome. Rome was a bit more hands-on in its governing practices.
The passage we read today from Romans is famous for its misuse. It is a very easy text to interpret simplistically, easy, but dangerous. In the 1930’s and 40’s a group within the Lutheran Church in Germany who called themselves “German Christians” used this text as the rationale for cooperating with Hitler. They also took a comment from Martin Luther’s Lecture on Romans at face value. Luther said, “Christians should not refuse, under the pretext of religion, to obey men, especially evil ones.” Luther’s lecture series took place between 1515-1516. He posted his famous 95 theses in 1517, and by the
1520’s was quite openly opposing human authority on the grounds that it was evil. Perhaps they should have paid more attention to what Luther actually did, as opposed to what he said early in his career.
Taken at face value, however, Romans does look like blanket obedience is called for. All authority has been established by God; therefore rebelling against authority is rebelling against God. The problem is this could theoretically give carte blanche to any group who seizes power, and any government, however corrupt. Much like Luther, Paul wrote these words before real persecution had taken place. In fact Paul died during the first large scale persecution under
Nero. We do know that the Churches Paul established did not go on to practice blind obedience and submission to the government, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that Paul’s words in Romans form only one side of the argument. If submission to civil authorities was to be total, the early Christians
2

would have sacrificed to the gods like they were told, and there would have been no deaths in the arenas, and no persecutions. If Paul had obeyed the civil authorities and denied Christ he would not have died a martyr.
Paul’s reasons for stating things so boldly in Romans may have had a lot to do with the survival of the Church. Persecution had not begun in the empire, but there was already enormous hostility from many Jewish leaders. The
Church was in a tenuous situation. Technically it was an illegal organization, and could be misconstrued as plotting insurrection and rebellion. Roman emperors did not stay in power by being nice people. They stayed in power by being ruthlessly paranoid. It was essential that Christians convey by their actions their law-abiding nature. Having said this, the limitations set on government authority lie in the assumptions behind Paul’s statements. Paul writes, “Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is
God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
Assumption number one is that the secular government is acting morally to enforce standards of right and wrong. It is not assumed under this scenario that the government is persecuting the innocent and rewarding the guilty.
Assumption number two is that the secular government is God’s servant, even
if it is not aware of that fact. A government that exalts itself above this status and claims an allegiance that belongs only to God has at least partially invalidated itself. There are such governments.
But here is the dilemma: Who draws the line? Do we have the freedom to disobey our government when we think it’s wrong? The problem is we are really
good at rationalizing. It is easy for us to convince ourselves that we are disobeying the government for religious reasons, when in reality it is for selfish reasons. I was very disturbed when I attended a meeting recently where the speaker seemed to be advocating not paying taxes, and not paying back student loans. She rationalized it by dividing the nation into the “robber class” who were in charge, and the oppressed. I have heard these rationalizations before. They’re corrupt anyway . . . they have it coming to them, it’s corporate
America . . . they exploit people . . . I don’t owe them anything. . . I’m only taking
what’s owed me, etc. It doesn’t matter. We answer to God. The Roman
Empire was not exactly free of corruption, but both Jesus and Paul taught that we are to pay our taxes. We cannot break the rules because it suits us. We pay taxes and meet our obligations to honor God, not human institutions. In the main, it is not okay for us to break the laws of the land.
Having said that, there are exceptions. There are times when it is appropriate to resist one’s own government, but as Christians we should do so non-violently. In the first centuries of the Church Christians resisted the government not by taking up swords, but by dying in the arenas. In the long run, it was a lot more effective. A social revolution took place because of the witness of the martyrs who died with such unnerving calm and grace. Our nation is made up of imperfect human beings, and as such we are a work in
3

progress. At one time slavery was legal. Christians broke the law and smuggled
African Americans north into Canada. Christian slaves broke the law by running away! And trust me, if such were still the case we’d be running the
underground railroad right here at Penn Wynne. At one time child labor was legal, as were dangerous working conditions, brutally long hours and low wages. Alongside the sometimes turbulent labor movement Christians protested –they lobbied, educated and advocated for change. At one time women in this nation were denied the vote. Peaceful protests brought about change. During World War II we violated the rights of thousands of Japanese
Americans, locking them up in internment camps. Segregation and Jim Crow laws were legal until Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian, led a peaceful revolution. America is a great nation, but despite that greatness we have systematically discriminated against people because of race, religion, sexual orientation and gender. And we have done so, because we are human, fallible, sinners.
In issues of social injustice Christians have always stood and resisted.
Our role is to be a light on a hill, a voice of prophetic witness. But we still need to have a form of government to bring order to society. We still have to pay our taxes, obey traffic laws, and lead moral lives. Government is a divine gift. It is designed to bring order out of chaos, and restrain evil. It would be wonderful if we could all live in peace and harmony, but the “Age of Aquarius” of the 1960’s never dawned. Young hippies are now old hippies, or just old. The world has not changed. There are still wars and lies and greed. We need laws and authorities to protect the weak from the strong who would abuse their power.
The liberty of one must never be allowed to cause harm to another.
Our role is to be a citizen of heaven first. We are to obey the laws of the land, but it is also our responsibility to call our government to account when it strays. Jesus taught us to pray, “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” We are to pray and work here and now to do our part to bring a glimpse of God’s kingdom to earth, knowing that only when Christ returns to reign will our ultimate freedom come, and the need for human government become obsolete. Amen.
4