| Arnetts | Arnett Family | Speaking Policy | Charles | Union Baptist Church | Links | Sermons | Letters | E-mail
 Jack's Main Memorial Page

INTRODUCTION: Today I have been asked to bring a message on "An Anabaptist Heir Looks At The Biblical Basis For The Christian’s Involvement In Politics And The Extent Of That Involvement." Well, I was permitted to choose my own title. Reading Genesis 1:26, 27 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

When Pastor Laird Baldwin asked me to do this he mentioned that I had run for public office. If you say I was wrong for that, I certainly would not argue with you. I do not have the final answer to the questions that might be raised. I have no doubts about the involvement of Christians in their society, but I do not claim to be able to define with finality the extent of that involvement. I can say this; there is less stress in politics than in the pastorate.

You might wonder how I have gotten involved with politics. About 20 years ago, I wrote a letter to James McGoldrick of Cedarville University, and he responded with a strong rebuke. Not about what I had written, but about my spelling, my grammar, and my writing in general. As most of you do, some times I respond to criticism contemplatively and took it in the vein that he meant it – constructive.

I took an adult night class in grammar. Then I decided to write letters to the editor for practice. I wrote about current events and tried to relate them to the scripture. Through that I became somewhat known in the community. Then about 16 years after I first started writing letters to the editor two elderly widows independent of each other, and who did not know each other, called me about problems they were having with the City of Union. I went to the council for them. Through that I have ended up somewhat of a political activist. It is difficult for me to walk away from abuse when it is in front of me. I thought I had a Biblical basis for doing so. James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Through of that involvement, I was drafted to run for mayor. Two ladies showed up at my house with petitions and informed my wife and I that I was going to run for Mayor.

That brings me to the message. I want to lay the foundation carefully. I know this is merely a review for you, and I don’t want to bore you; but I think this is so important.

MAN WAS CREATED A SOCIAL BEING: Our text says that God created man as male and female - a social being. It is true that God created one man and one woman. Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Yet, without doubt God created mankind in that day. Man, as a social creature, is created in the image of God. Strong says that God is plural intensive (1) that is it has a singular meaning. It has sometimes been called an uni-plural. God is a triune being – one and yet three. Man, as male and female, is a social being that was created in the image of God who is one and yet many. How does this relate to man? Let us ask some questions?

Which is more important in the godhead? The one or the many? The fact that there is one God or that there are three persons? We believe that those truths are equally important. It is also true that in the Godhead the persons are equal, and yet there are roles. We read in Genesis 2: 24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Are they two? Yes! Are they one? Yes!

Man as a social being is created in the image of God. Are the persons of the Godhead equal? Yes, they are equally God? Do the persons of the Godhead have distinct and different roles? Yes

Are husband and wife equal? Yes. Equal in their humanity or personhood, yet distinct in their roles.

Now obviously our text is specifically speaking of the marriage relationship. Man is created as man and woman. I contend, for the purpose of our discussion, that marriage is the prototype for the other institutions instituted by God. I will not spend a lot of time proving this. For now, suffice it to observe that God created man as a social being in His image, in the image of the economic trinity, man in all of his social relationships is meant to have the structure of the one and the many. Let us take a cursory look at the other two social relationships of man.

MAN IS IN THE IMAGE OF GOD IN HIS RELIGIOUS RELATION SHIPS: I am going to be using much of the information in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, of which Colin Brown is the General editor. I am looking at the section for Church and Synagogue (2)

When they get to the OT translation of the Septuagint and the treatment of ekklesia and synagogue they show that it was used in a civil sense and also used in a religious sense. It is interesting that primarily two Hebrew words were used. Edah and qahal. Edah was never translated by Ekklesia. Ekklesia was only used to translate qahal. Ekklesia was only used when a clear assembly or oneness was in view. Synagogue was used if the many or the one was in view.

In the religious sense Israel, when used as the one or the many, was used of born again Israelites and unbelieving Israelites. Jesus Himself used the term synagogue when speaking of the many apart from any real oneness. In Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 Jesus spoke of the synagogue of Satan. That was not an assembly, but if you please an invisible body of Satan.

This is where Protestants went wrong on their view of the religious and the civil relationships. Protestants spoke of corpus christianum, the Anabaptist rejected the corpus christianum and only spoke the corpus christi. Corpus christianum was the designation of a people, a country that had Christianity as their official religion. (3) As an heir of the Anabaptist and of their political legacy, the First Amendment, I also would reject the concept of corpus christianum. Paul clearly considered the church as one and yet many, which was made up of born again believers.

Paul in writing to the church at Rome wrote in Rom 12:5 "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." To the Church at Corinth he wrote, I Cor. 12;27 "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." One body yet many members.

MAN IS IN THE IMAGE OF GOD IN HIS CIVIL RELATIONSHIPS: Now here is where we start to consider The Biblical Basis For The Christian’s Involvement In Politics And The Extent Of That Involvement. Let us notice the singular man in Genesis 9: 6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Clearly man’s blood is speaking of the individual man, one of the many. In speaking of the second time man is used, Mathew Henry said, "But there are those who are ministers of God to protect the innocent, by being a terror to evil-doers, and they must not bear the sword in vain, [#Rom 13:4]. Willful murder ought always to be punished with death." (3) The Great and incomparable John Gill on this passage, "That is, he that is guilty of willful murder shall surely be put to death by the order of the civil magistrate; so the Targum of Jonathan," (4) It seems clear to me that man here in the second appearance is mankind and means man as a unit, or one. Here the representative, the civil leaders, of the social compact is called man.

If it be true as I content that man as a social creature is created in the image of God, and marriage is the prototype for the institutions ordained by God, those of us who are heirs of the Anabaptists will agree that in the Church all are equal, neither Jew nor gentile, neither male nor female; and yet different roles, then that would also be true of our civil relationships. Or at least God’s intention for our civil relationships. As in marriage, men abuse it and in religious relationships there are those who abuse their office, so also in our civil relationships there are those who abuse their authority.

We often hear that there is no form of Government that is more biblical than another. That is not true. Protestants, may believe all forms of Government are equal, unbelivers may believe all forms of Government are equal, but they are not. God has ordained a particular form of government. That government which comes closest to reflecting the unity of God and the relationship of the persons in the Godhead is the one that is closest to the biblical order for civil government.

Which one is that? Well let us ask the same questions we asked to determine the equality and the distinction in marriage. If we do that we find that the form of government that is closest to the biblical order for government is the one that recognizes the oneness of society and also the individuals in that society, or the one and the many.

In other words, the one that balances the rights and responsibilities of the whole with the rights and responsibilities of the individual is the ordained form of God.

Listen to the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed …" (6) This was written by a non-Christian. I believe the Declaration of Independence is an example of common grace.

Notice how well this fits with the other institutions ordained by God. In marriage, a woman voluntarily accepts the leadership of some man. He voluntarily accepts the responsibility for leadership in that marriage. Yet they are equal in personhood.

In the NT Church, the body elects its officers and submits to their leadership. The officers willingly accept the oversight thereof. Yet the officers and members of the body are equal as priests and as children of God.

Surprise! Surprise! The third institution also fits that same type organization. Listen to the U.S. Constitution, Section 8 Article 1 1^st paragraph, "The congress shall hove Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; …" (7) Notice for the general Welfare, or welfare of the unit, not welfare of a particular class. As we read the constitution we are struck with the balance on the one and the many. I have certain rights as an individual and society as a whole has a right to expect certain things from me.

We know that the persons of God agreed to accept their roles. The roles in the Godhead are by covenant. Roles are true of the economic trinity, not the ontological trinity.

THE CHRISITAN’S RELATIONSHIPS TO THE THREE INSTITUTIONS: It seems to me that the Anabaptists were fighting some very erroneous and entrenched concepts. They were fighting on both fronts, the Roman Catholic view and the Reformed view, the concept that the civil and the religious institutions were mingled. The Protestant view as well as the Catholic view did not consider the one and the many equally important.

The Anabaptist had no problem being active in the institution of marriage; they had no problem being very active in the religious institution, the New Testament Church. But this third institution so corrupted by man as to entangle the civil and the religious institutions together that they would not take an active part thereof. Today we have heirs of the Anabaptists who will not even vote. I have one German Baptist in Union that does allow me to put political signs in his yard. This year he put his hand on my shoulder and said, "I always let you put up signs."

Some of the heirs of the Anabaptists will vote but are non-resistant. But, I think most of us agree the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution is the political legacy of the Anabaptists. I refuse to judge the Anabaptists because I am not in their shoes. I do not think I could be active in a church that did not operate as NT institution in the image of God: could you? It would be difficult for me to be active in a marriage where the wife insisted on destroying the responsibility of the marriage to be an image bearer. I would not fight against her, but I am not sure I could take an active part in trying to build it up.

With all our condemnation of the Anabaptists let us keep in mind they were good citizens. They just did not take active part in civil affairs. They did know what government was to do. They knew the government was to protect the innocent and to punish the wicked.

Are Christians to be active in civil affairs? I think it depends upon the nearness of the civil organization to the design of God. I do not see how a Christian could be an active communist party leader.

I Corinthians 4:1,2 "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful." I think the government of our nation is a gift from God. I think God has given us a good foundation. Christians should be good stewards of what God has given us. We are losing the good foundation, because of two lies Satan told some years hence. One, You should not talk politics. Two, religion and politics don’t mix. That was a liberal lie to keep bible believers from challenging them.

We need to be good stewards of what God has given us. Yes, Christians should be actively involved in all three institutions ordained for God for our social relationships involved. Of course a person may not find himself or herself in a marriage relationship and hence should not be active in such.

WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THAT INVOLVEMENT: My opinion is that no man should allow one institution to destroy his responsibility in another. A father of three probably should spend less times in civic affairs than a single person. A Pastor or Deacon probably should spend less times in civic affairs than a Christian with out an office. Yet there are times in the providence of God when responsibilities are pressed upon us that are difficult to turn down.

I am thankful for James Dobson, but I do not think than any of us should do what he does. I am thankful for Ken Ham, but is that your job? I confess, in case you are wondering, that I do believe at times I got over involved or at least allowed my involvement to take too much of my time.

1 Corinthians 10:31 "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." I do believe that we should glorify God in our civil activities. I also believe that standing for the rule of law, glorifies God. Publicly standing for the text of our law having meaning is for the glory of God. Standing for parental rights is standing for the glory of God.

I had a liberal preacher threaten to kill me for standing for parental rights. Was I wrong for writing a letter to the editor defending parental rights as ordained by God?