Does the Bible teach religious pluralism
in civil government?
Religious pluralism means that our civil government can and
should be religiously neutral. Most Christians including most
political conservatives believe this. What is the legal
authority? The answer is best given by quoting from the most
prominent Christian U.S. Constitutional lawyers. John Whitehead
of the Rutherford Institute has said "the United States Supreme
Court has expanded the definition of religion under the first
amendment to include various religions and philosophical systems.
Therefore, the first amendment protects all religions and
religious expression in guaranteeing freedom for all (and rightly
so)." [essay "Fundamental Principles Undergirding the American
Constitution", 1990]
Does this mean belief system only? No. Keith Fornier of the
American Center for Law and Justice also states "Of course, the
government should not endorse one religion over another ... That
is what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is
designed to prevent." ["Religious Cleansing in the American
Republic", 1993]
In contrast to the religious pluralism view, the Bible states
that the civil servant is God's servant and his function is to
punish evil [Romans 13:4-6]. Furthermore, the definition of evil
is determined by the spiritually mature [Hebrews 5:11-14].
Religious pluralism proponents attempt to force the lie "civil
government is secular not religious" down our throats. This
'god' is not the same 'God' of the Bible. The neutrality
position is illogical.
Why is murder (well, most kinds anyway) illegal? Why is a civil
punishment attached? It's because somebody's law system *must*
be enforced. Suppose it's left up to the "democracy". In a
society of 51% wolves and 49% sheep, what's to prevent them from
taking a vote on what to eat for dinner? From whatever angle you
examine the authority behind civil law there is just one answer:
there is no such thing as neutrality of "religions and
philosophical systems" in civil law.
----
In spite of Romans 13 being perfectly clear about civil authority
being under God's ultimate authority other Scriptures have been
used to defend religious pluralism.
--
"He who is without sin may cast the first stone." Jesus Christ
said this responding to the accusers of a woman caught in
adultery. Most of main-stream Christianity has taken this to
mean Christ taught love and tolerance to all. Since every one is
a sinner, no one may participate in putting to death someone else
for committing a crime. Thus the New Testament says capital
punishment is wrong. Many passages on religious liberty and
freedom from the New Testament seem to agree.
But what is the context of the woman-caught-in-adultery story?
The civil government was in subjection to Roman authority. In
particular, only the Romans had civil authority to carry out
capital punishment. Only a year or two later, during Jesus'
Jewish trial, Herod's court insisted on bringing Jesus to Pilate
and having Pilate sentence Jesus to death. They did not have the
authority. However, in early Israel, Moses, via God's civil law
system as recorded in Scripture, commanded the people to stone
adulterers. The accusers expected to put Jesus into a no-win
situation. If he said yes to Mosaic law and condoned a stoning
of the woman he would be in trouble with the Roman authorities.
If he said no then he was going against Moses and God's law.
Jesus bypassed the corporate (civil) punishment question
temporarily by making it personal. "He who is without sin may
cast the first stone." Since everyone but Jesus was a sinner,
they all eventually left. Jesus then said "Neither do I condemn
you. Go and sin no more." Jesus had personal authority because
he was sinless. He permitted her to live but under the
understanding she no longer committed adultery. Now, back to the
question of corporate (civil) punishment for adultery. The Jews
had lost their authority over capital punishment because of their
corporate (national) sins. I believe the wiser of the woman's
accusers had already figured this out.
Plain logic would also lead to a similar conclusion of this
story. If Jesus taught love and tolerance to all, was it wrong
for our government to punish Terry Nichols and Timothy McVey for
their over-300 murders when they blew up the Murray building in
Oklahoma City? Of course not. It's the government's function to
carry the "sword" as seen in Romans 13.
--
Matthew 7:1 says "Do not judge or you too will be judged". On
it's face this also appeals to love and tolerance to all. Jesus
had also equated mere glances at a woman to adultery. So, if
someone finds fault in another they are exposing their own selves
to be judged to Jesus' stricter standard. A mere glance at a
woman with lust is worthy of the adultery punishment - death.
It's best to simply assume the best in everyone.
But what is the context? In verse 3 Jesus continues with
recognizing fault in someone else as debris caught in one's eye.
He concludes the thought in verse 5 by saying first deal with
your own faults (take the plank out of your own eye) so that you
may assist someone else to overcome their fault (help remove the
speck from your brother's eye). So, in context Jesus actually
encourages us to do all we can to see that we (first) and others
(next) live righteously (not in sin).
--
"My kingdom is not of this world" [John 18:36] meant that
Christ's kingdom was a spiritual kingdom and not physical.
This interpretation simply doesn't stand up next to other
biblical passages. Jesus also said to Pilate that the Father has
the authority to place anyone He so chooses in any position of
authority [John 19:11]. Romans 13 has already been given in
support of the civil authority being under God's authority.
Psalm 2 is the most often quoted Old Testament passage in the New
Testament. The "Son" is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28:18 states Jesus was given all earthly authority. No
exception for civil authority is mentioned. Even those who
believe Jesus' kingdom was not a physical one then actually
reverse their position when it comes to the last days. Most
believe that in the millennium Christ will wield civil authority
[Revelation 20:4-9]. We can also reach back into history and if
we assume Christ *did* want a pluralistic civil government then
was the Mayflower Compact wrong because it specifically set up a
Christian civil government? Were the charters of the majority of
our original 13 colonies wrong to require religious oaths to hold
civil office?
--
Render unto Caesar what belongs to him and to God what is his
[Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25]. This supports the idea
of two separate kingdoms. If Jesus condoned the pagan Roman
civil authority over him he obviously recognizes that the
spiritual authority, God, is different from the pagan physical
authority, Rome.
History teaches that Rome exempt the Jews from being forced to
worship the Caesars. This is because the Jews, rightfully so,
recognized this civil law contrary to their Sovereign's will.
This second commandment was not simply outside the jurisdiction
of the civil government. In fact, God specifically forbid any
thing or any one from receiving worship other than himself. The
inscription of Caesar on the coin meant that the money system
belonged to Rome. Pay taxes. This is Rome's law. Jesus
implicitly was telling each person, since they were created in
the image of God, that God required their worship. I believe
Jesus would have never bowed to a Caesar in spite of any civil
law Rome made. What about you? Rome was not free to determine
if Caesar worship was ok or not. God had already said it was not
many times.
The first time Jerusalem along with the temple (God's temporary
dwelling place) was destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar God made
sure that the vassal kingdoms of the world knew that He was still
in control [Daniel 4:32]. Isaiah 10:12-19 gives an account of
how God punished Assyria for similar cause. This is a
reoccurring theme throughout Scripture. There are many more
references. The fact that ungodly kingdoms are successful for
awhile does not alter God's sovereign authority [Daniel 11:36].
This is not to say we can or need to set up a Theocracy which
claims civil authority is over every other authority. The Bible
does recognize a division (separation) of power among a few human
institutions. These are 1) individual, 2) family, 3) church, and
4) civil. Christians may always hold differences of opinion
about where these touch or overlap one another. But if we claim
to believe the Bible, Sola Scriptura, we should at least confess
the answers are given in the Bible.
--
"When the Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do instinctively the
things of the Law they show the work of the Law written in their
hearts, their conscience bearing witness" [Romans 2:14-15]. Some
say this passage condones religious pluralism within civil
government since everyone, not just Christians, have a conscience
to guide them. Some believe this supports a "Law of Nature and
of Nature's god", which is best expressed in the Declaration of
Independence.
But, more importantly, what does a proper exegesis teach? The
theme begins in Romans 1:18. Godlessness and wickedness of men
suppress the truth by their wickedness. Their thinking becomes
futile and God then darkens their foolish hearts [v.21]. God
gave them over to their sinful desires [v.24] to depraved minds
[v.28] which approve of those who do likewise [v.32]. However,
God's kindness [Ch.2 v.4] prods both the Jew, the one with the
law [v.13] as well as the gentile, the one outside of the law
[vs. 14&15] to persist in doing good [v.7]. Therefore one cannot
rely on conscience because with incorrigible actions the truth is
sealed up by a dominant rival world-view (kingdom). In other
words this kind of person is in a conspiracy against God the true
Sovereign authority [Colossians 2:8]. The Bible is given for
reproof, correction and instruction in right living for every
good work [II Timothy 3:16&17], even those in civil authority.
--
When the political kingdom of man refuses subordination to Jesus
Christ, it becomes a rival religion: a religion of humanity. See
Rousas J. Rushdoony "The Nature of the American System".
