JUSTICE AND THE BIBLE: PART 2

Another interesting article on this subject appears in the recent issue of Christianity Today magazine. It is a book review by M. Lefebvre on Michael Rhodes' book: Just Discipleship Biblical: Justice in an Unjust World.

The review begins with Rhodes' observation that evangelicals often have a “justice-lite” faith since most teaching on Christian discipleship concentrates almost exclusively on maturing us as individuals to the exclusion of how we are to deal with others outside of ourselves and our immediate circle of acquaintances. Rhodes offers for our consideration four possible biblical models which have been proposed in order to achieve “God's politics of holiness.” Here they are with some comments:

Romans 13 Only

In the first seven verses of this chapter Paul enjoins believers to obey the constituted political leaders since God is the One who has appointed them. We could say that if this applied to such an evil and oppressive government as Rome, how much more it should apply to a relatively enlightened government such as we have in the United States. On the other hand, Rhodes notes that we are given no real guidance here regarding our individual involvement in political issues since that was not an option during New Testament times.

N. Elliott brings up some additional caveats against taking these few verses as the only biblical perspective on the issue. In the first place, even Paul elsewhere in his writings gives us a different view of government. Thus, in I Corinthians 2:6-8;15:24-26, Paul is quite critical of the wisdom of the rulers of this age and points out that they are all going to be judged by God. And Peter draws the line of obedience to the appointed authorities at the point where they actually attempt to prevent him from preaching the Gospel (Acts 5:29). This is despite the fact that Peter teaches elsewhere (I Peter 2:13-17; 3:13) that Christians are to accept the authority of the constituted authorities so that Christianity is not maligned to others. Similarly, just a few verses earlier in Romans 12:2, Paul tells his audience, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.” Thus, whatever we decide to do in regard to society and politics, we are not to resort to using their tactics and values as a guide to our own actions.

So, at best the teachings in Romans 13:1-7 command us to submit to the decisions and earthly authority of government and not try to overthrow it by violent means since only the state has the right to inflict punishment on the wrongdoer. But on the other hand that does not mean that we must fully accept all of its rulings and mindset. And if we choose to disobey its laws for conscience's sake, we should be fully prepared to (1) suffer the consequences and (2) weigh our actions against the possibly negative effects they may have on the overall cause of Christ.

Joseph Option

Another model to consider is that of Joseph. He served high in the ranks of government in a polytheistic society and used his position to protect God's people. But much as we generally admire him as an example of the good that a believer placed in power can do, there is a dark side to Joseph as well, as Rhodes points out. In fact, it was due to Joseph's suggestions that the Egyptian government gradually acquired absolute power over all its subjects subjects to the point where it was later in a position to reduce almost all of them to a condition of slavery, especially the Jews.

I realize that the Joseph Option is the most common stance among conservative Christians today. But the adage “Might makes right” is certainly not the biblical way. Years ago I made myself very unpopular in the church I was attending. They had a “Salt and Light Committee” which was dedicated to the goal of packing the political party meetings so as to elect their own members as party delegates where they could assure a Christian-friendly policy statement would be drafted. I made the modest suggestion (only partly in jest) that if past church history was any guide, we should all be hoping and praying for an atheistic dictatorship to come in power in America. In that manner, we might again have the same sort of spiritual impact on the world that the early Christians did on the Roman world before they eventually gained control of political power under Emperor Constantine and Christianity became the official state religion.

Revelation Only

That leads into Rhodes' final model. He notes that the viewpoint in this apocalyptic book is that world governments are no more and no less than the beast in the unholy trinity described within its verses. Rhodes rejects this model as only applying to the sort of political environment John's readers were surrounded by in which they had no opportunities to influence government at all. On the contrary, many of today's societies do open the door to the possibility for a godly politician to accomplish much good.

But the message of Revelation applies just as much today in our society in which even Bible-believing Christians often adopt an almost idolatrous attitude toward their favorite political party, politicians, and news outlets. In that way, they are in grave danger of completely giving up their Christian witness to the world, becoming an embarrassment to the cause of Christ, and getting deeply embroiled in lies and violence that are totally contrary to God's teachings.

Daniel Option

Rhodes settles on this final model as the one he prefers. He says whereas Joseph never challenged the Egyptian power base, Daniel managed to find ways to work within the system while still “confronting the rampant injustice of the empire.”

I would have to only partially agree with Rhodes on this issue. It is indeed true that Daniel is an example of a devout believer who saw nothing wrong with being a part of a system of government which could certainly not be characterized as righteous in any sense of the word. But I see absolutely no support in the Book of Daniel to state that he ever confronted injustice, at least not social injustice. Instead, he appears to be in the exact mold of the early apostles who felt they should obey the prevailing government in all things except to the point at which their individual rights to live a Christian life were directly threatened.