Too Hot to Handle: Bucking or Buckling?

In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.

I promised quite a while back now that we’d talk about this subject some Friday in the future, and there’s no time like the present.

Tom: IC, we opened a can of worms on the subject of authority and just how the Christian ought to respond to it. That’s not something evangelicals have had to worry about too much in the West for many years, but it’s a topic that’s becoming increasingly relevant as governments begin to encroach on the freedoms we currently enjoy in the interest of a “just society”.

So how about it? Got any grenades to lob on this subject?

Pitting Scripture Against Scripture

Immanuel Can: Well, on the surface it may seem a straightforward kind of question: Do we “obey God rather than men” or “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”? Two sides, but pick one and you can at least find some kind of scriptural warrant it would seem — at least at a superficial glance. So, Tom, does that mean we can say that scripture cannot give us any actual guidance on this issue because it seems to warrant both positions?

Tom: Well, you know what I’m going to say next: when two scriptures appear to contradict one another it always turns out they don’t. That follows from the apostolic doctrine that all scripture is breathed out by God and that God, by his very nature, cannot self-contradict or err. So all it means when two verses appear to warrant opposite positions is that our understanding of one or both is flawed or incomplete.

IC: Yes, I agree. But perhaps we need to plug in some particulars to make sure we know which verse applies where, and why. So let’s take a scenario in which the will of the State and the direction of scripture appear to be opposite, and see if we can’t clear up our vision by applying the scripture to it. What would you like to tackle?

The State vs. the Christian Family

Tom: If you live in Brazil, Guatemala, Armenia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Netherlands and numerous other countries, the State forbids home schooling. What are the biblical options for believing parents in those countries who wish to raise their young children without exposing them to anti-Christian propaganda?

IC: Good one. It pits the idea of submitting to authorities against the responsibility to raise children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord”, as they used to say.

Well, the Bible says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God”. So I guess we’ve all got to send our kids to the approved public schools, right? I mean, if we live in one of those countries you named ...

Tom: I agree. I recognize that some Christian parents feel passionately that home schooling is the will of God for them, but even in countries where it’s illegal, it’s only illegal when you insist on doing it instead of complying with the law. What’s forbidden is refusing to send your child to the State school. So Christians there can do both: they can teach their children at home as they see fit (and they’d need to do quite a bit of that anyway to immunize their kids from the propaganda machine), but they must see to it that they comply with the law as well. I think that’s the appropriate response. Parents have never been able to control everything their children are exposed to, but they certainly have an obligation to help them interpret it correctly.

IC: Ah, I see your solution ... you reject the opposition I posed.

Tom: I reject most hypotheticals. J

Live Peaceably With All

IC: You suggest there’s no inconsistency between obeying the governmental demand and fulfilling the parental imperative. Got it.

Tom: I think if there’s a way to do both, that’s the best way. “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all”.

IC: Well, I’m okay with that, but I can’t help but wonder if everyone would be. Would you say, then, that a parent who insisted on home schooling in defiance of the State would be guilty of disobedience to God as well?

Tom: Not if he sent his children to public school during school hours, no. The parents remain perfectly free to teach their children anything they like when they are home. So for me the issue is not really “home schooling” but whether the children show for up their mandated “good citizenship” programming between nine and three-thirty. And I’m thinking that’s the most practical Christian response.

Now if the parents refuse to send their children to public school at all because they think the government should never be allowed to teach their children anything? Well, that’s another story.

What do you think?

IC: Hey, no fair asking me the same question I just asked you ... but okay.

Good Effects from Bad Intentions

I see a lot of Christian parents today worried about the effect of the world’s education system on their children. I know a lot about that, and they’re right to be nervous, I think. At the same time, if our government were to behave like those other governments you mention, the Christian parent’s mere fear of indoctrination would not be sufficient reason to keep children home ... though it would be good incentive to improve home spiritual education practices when the school day was over, and to be very intentional about helping children to evaluate the State’s claims critically in the light of scripture.

Even a morally bad education system can actually end up producing good effects, if parents use it to their advantage.

Delimiting Spheres of Authority

Tom: The penalty may matter to some too. Assuming a parent genuinely believes the government is acting outside its proper sphere of authority, if the penalty for being caught home schooling is a $500 fine once annually, some may feel it’s worth the cost to defy the law, whereas if it’s death or imprisonment that’s at stake, they may be a tad more pragmatic and decide home schooling is literally not the hill to die on.

After all, sphere of authority is a consideration in the Lord’s instruction to “render unto Caesar”, is it not? We are to render to Caesar the things that ACTUALLY belong to Caesar, not necessarily the things Caesar CLAIMS belong to him.

IC: Ah. Very good point. So whose “likeness and inscription” are on our children? In other words, who ultimately owns them by right? Surely that is the One who has a right to say how they are educated.

Acting Outside the Limits

Tom: Well put. Our obedience to the powers that be is not absolute. While we are not to be rebels, we are also not to be stupid. Elijah ran from Ahab. David ran from Saul. Moses ran from Pharaoh. Paul was let down a wall in a basket to escape death. Even the Lord Jesus passed through a murderous crowd to avoid being stoned because it wasn’t his time yet. In all cases, the “authorities” involved had exceeded their rightful sphere of responsibility and intruded on God’s domain. So there is plenty of biblical precedent for outward compliance with over-expanded authority while quietly doing whatever is necessary.

IC: Well, quite so … whenever the authorities impinge on an issue of our relationship with the Lord, there can be no question of our allegiances. But to the extent that we can sometimes ‘get along’ with even an unjust or wicked secular power, we should do so … as much as it rests with us.

And even should a secular system be teaching things that are rather wicked (as the present one is, actually), there is an opportunity there for young Christians to become lion-mettled and strong against temptation. So it’s by no means clear to me that we are always doing a favor to children by sheltering them from contrary ideas. Some exposure to those things is part of their becoming convinced, resolute, confident and articulate Christians. It’s always a question of when and how much, though.

Tom: Agreed. Have you got a real-world situation for me?

Numbering the Not-So-Fighting Men

IC: Okay, how about this: suppose the government requires you to produce and submit to them a written list of your church’s “members” in each year in order to obtain tax-free status. To do so means you have to accede to a definition of “member” that is not biblical — one that is demographic or based on signing some sort of list, rather than spiritual and based on actual association with Christ. Should the local church do it?

Tom: It wouldn’t bother me all that much to see the end of tax-free status, in keeping with not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing. That said, confession of Christ is part of the package for the believer, so if anyone wants to know who the Christians are, I’d be perfectly happy to submit a list with a single name on it: mine. But I would never presume to collect names or signatures for submission to the government or anyone else. That’s up to the other believers to determine for themselves. And I wouldn’t sign a list or “membership agreement” identifying myself on any basis other than faith in Christ.

IC: I like your answer well. I agree. And I rather suspect that if the political worm ever turns against Christians, then these lists of people we’ve provided the federal government will not prove advantageous to us. Our dependence on mortgages and buildings, on lists and procedures, will be the leverage the government is able to use to induce theological modifications if it ever wants to do so.

Things That Can’t Be Said

Tom: Okay, one more then. Let’s suppose it’s not the gospel itself at stake, but another scriptural truth that is unpalatable to a segment of the population — the doctrine of submission of the wife to the husband, the truth that homosexuality or abortion are sins against God, or maybe that we’re all made “male and female” as opposed to gender-fluid. The government decides one day that we can’t teach one or more of those things anymore, even in the privacy of our own gatherings, and there is a significant financial penalty and maybe even a contempt of court charge that comes with non-compliance, maybe some jail time.

Worth fighting over? I mean, these issues are not part of the “core” message of Christianity, are they? They’re not life-and-death for people out there.

IC: Not life-and-death? Abortion certainly is. So let’s go with the other group of issues, which are not, and present more ostensibly “borderline” cases ... stuff about sexuality and gender roles, and what can be taught in public. Those aren’t life-and-death, for sure.

Measuring the Spiritual Stakes

But are they spiritual life and death? Well, the Word says this:

“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

So suddenly that starts to look life-and-death after all, doesn’t it?

Tom: Oh, certainly. But you wouldn’t consider backburnering those subjects just a little to avoid an ugly situation?

IC: Would I? Maybe, since I suppose I’m no less prone to making moral compromises in the face of conflict than anyone else, I would think. But should I — isn’t that the real question?

Tom: Absolutely. And maybe there’s a temptation to the opposite reaction among some believers. You have the quiet ones who would be inclined to go along with the government and say, “Well, we’re supposed to be subject to authority”, and they’d find scriptures to defend their position with. Then you have those who dispositionally are inclined to poke the bear who might say, “Here’s the line in the sand, let’s cross it”, and they’d have their scriptures too. One danger is that under pressure we use scripture to back our natural inclinations, rather than developing our response to a crisis from the word of God. Is there a balance to be struck in a case like this?

Avoid the Unprincipled Compromise

IC: I think what we need here is a spirit of discernment. We need to ask ourselves questions like:

• “What, ultimately, is at stake here?”
• “Are my natural inclinations actually backed by scripture?”
• “Am I just seeking to avoid conflict at all costs?”
• “Am I posing as tolerant when really I’m just forsaking principle?” and
• “Am I making a bigger fuss of this than scripture would warrant?”

In our consciences we have at least a semi-reliable fire-alarm that may well alert us to unprincipled compromises. So when that internal alarm goes off, we need to respond. Whatever is against conscience is sin.

Tom: Right. Whatever we do, we need to be able to proceed with spiritual confidence, not just bluster.

IC: At the end of the day, each of stands or falls only to our Master, not to what others think — or we feel — that we should do (after all, that is the true Authority from which all other authorities derive their warrant). But in the Word we have the way to know whether or not on that day we are likely to stand or fall.