Tier 1: Discussion on Readings

(1) Briefly compare and contrast the following theories of government:

• The "two swords" view (Pope Gelasius)

• The "two kingdoms" view (Magisterial Reformation)

• The Anabaptist view

• The "social contract" view (Locke)

Two Swords: Gelasius argued for two "swords," one given to the state for secular jurisdiction, and the other possessed by the church for sacred jurisdiction. Unsurprisingly, as a pope, he viewed the church's sword as of greater value and therefore held the priority over the state's.

Two Kingdoms: Reformers viewed the "right-hand" as a spiritual kingdom and the "left-hand" as an earthly kingdom. The left-hand kingdom includes man-made laws binding over external actions (and for Luther, the visible church), while conscience was exclusively to be governed by God in the right-hand kingdom (the invisible church). While the right-hand kingdom is permitted to restrain and punish evil by threat or use of force, any attempted suppression of conscience is viewed as unacceptable.

Anabaptist: The Anabaptists held a sharp distinction between church and state, seeking instead for the church to hold the main authority in order to make the visible church match the invisible church.

Social Contract: This view holds that certain rights and freedoms are unalienable and given by God and that the purpose of government is to punish the violation of these rights and freedoms. Governments therefore exist contractually in an agreement between them and people. Upon the violation of these rights, the people have a right to rebel. Its origins can be seen in the works of Calvin, though they were somewhat secularized by John Locke.

(2) What is your understanding of the biblical teaching on the authority of government and the relationship between church and state? What key biblical passages inform your understanding?

In Romans 13, serious weight to relationships of human authority such as parents, governments, and church leaders on the basis of them being appointed by God. It is also not uncommon in "vice lists," such as in 2 Timothy, for those who are disobedient to these authorities to be listed. Combined with the generic nature of the Noahic covenant, I understand the authority of God to be supreme, with authority to government being of high priority. The specifics I'll get into more with #3.

(3) What is your view of resistance theory? Is resistance to government authority ever justified, and if so, under what conditions and in what manners may it be carried out?

Unless one wants to argue that Christianity should have never existed, resistance to government must be justified at some level. I believe that the obvious conditions to disobey are when they require disobedience to God (ex: Daniel being told to bow to Haman) or prohibit obedience to Him (ex: any country where Christianity is illegal). However, there are cases where government overreach does not reach that extreme and is still harmful.

Government is established by God with one of its main purposes of punishing evil (Rom 13). When they stray from this purpose by rewarding it and punishing good, it is threatening, but Scripture does not say that every and all forms of governmental evil warrant rebellion. I view the right to rebel similarly to divorce: there are clear grounds to do it, and perhaps clear grounds where it must be done, but the area leading up to it is moral grey area that must be navigated with wisdom. Keeping government from growing too unnecessarily large allows its capacity for overreach to be lessened.

(4) How does your view of resistance theory apply to what churches experienced during the 2020 pandemic?

I understand that governments will frequently take an inch and stretch it a mile, but humans are also known for being unreasonably rebellious to appointed authorities, so I do not think there is "one side of the horse" that is better to fall off on. We are to have attitudes of obedience to appointed authorities while remaining ultimately obedient to God, the highest authority, which requires great levels of wisdom.

Several cities, laws, and politicians gave great examples of the grey area above that I mentioned, with a few extending into the prohibiting obedience category. In more extreme cases where worship gatherings were banned outright with reasonable precautions (I underline that qualifier to ensure it gets read), I would have fully supported civil disobedience.

I typically complied with more lower level infractions of liberty, such as mask mandates, unless someone had a specific issue that would not allow them to. This obedience, however, is not the same thing as advocating for the government's right to do it. It is a matter of picking battles. I personally obeyed because I did not believe I had much reason to disobey, but if I knew someone who morally felt torn about obeying the government for a specific reason, I would have heard it out.

(5) What is one question you have to contribute to our discussion?

How do we respond to someone who says we should have a "general posture of obedience/optimism" or a "general posture of disobedience/skepticism" with government? Is one right or wrong?

Additionally, at what point is allegiance to a political party or opinion too dominating?