How the Gospel Shapes our Politics series
Occasional Paper no. 1
Published by the Presbyterian Church of Victoria (PCV)’s Church and Nation Committee
August 20, 2024
—————
Introduction
Christians rightly want to understand civil government and law from a biblically informed perspective. This paper is the first in an intended series of papers on the theme of “How the Gospel Shapes our Politics”, prepared by the Church and Nation Committee of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria. The papers are intended to help the church think through issues of law and government and their implications for the church.
A crucial distinction
When thinking about matters of law and government, it is important to draw a distinction between matters that are clearly taught by Scripture or can be deduced by good and necessary consequence from biblical teaching, and matters that are not.
Scripture is “the rule of faith and life” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.2) and is binding upon the believer. Christians are under an obligation to believe and submit to scriptural teaching. This includes the moral categories of sin and righteousness, which are determined by the law of God (as summarised in the Ten Commandments).
In contrast to this are matters of wisdom. Things that are not prohibited or commanded by Scripture or can be deduced by good and necessary consequence from biblical teaching are matters of wisdom, not of sin and righteousness. The Bible is relevant to matters of wisdom, but in many situations it does not directly prescribe one or other course of action.
It is important to dispel some potential misconceptions about wisdom matters. First, the fact that something is a wisdom issue does not mean that it is unimportant or that Christians should have a dismissive attitude towards it. While it is true that wisdom decisions cannot affect a person’s salvation, they can have very significant consequences for people (such as indigenous disadvantage or disability policy).
Secondly, the fact that something is a wisdom issue does not mean that truth is relative. It is either true, or it is not, that carbon emissions are causing rising global temperatures and irreversible damage to our planet. However, we do not have an infallible guide to what the truth is, and so our beliefs on this issue are not a matter of biblical prescription.
Thirdly, even though wisdom issues are not matters of sin and righteousness, there are degrees of wisdom, and some decisions can be more wise than others. Things may be unbeneficial and unwise, even if they are not sinful or unrighteous. It is not sinful to have a poor diet. But it may not be particularly good or wise.
It is also important not to read the Bible too narrowly. Scripture speaks to all of life, and has social and political implications, including implications for law and civil government. The Bible does not directly deal with issues such as transgender pronouns, discrimination law, educational methodologies, and the Voice to Parliament, but it sets out key principles which are relevant to how we think about those issues.
The Westminster Confession of Faith states that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (1.6). That is, doctrines may be deduced from scriptural teaching by good and necessary consequence, and truths arrived at in this way are as binding as the express teaching of Scripture.
Most questions of policy and government are matters of wisdom
The distinction between matters that are taught by Scripture and matters that are not may seem an obvious one. But it has important implications for how Christians navigate questions of law and government. Probably the key point is that the vast majority of questions of policy and government are matters of wisdom.
Take, for example, indigenous disadvantage. On any measure, indigenous people experience significant levels of disadvantage, including shorter life expectancy, lower attainment of education and literacy, unemployment and poor health, rates of domestic violence and substance abuse.
These problems need to be urgently addressed as a matter of justice (e.g., see Isaiah 1:17). However, the Bible does not prescribe what policies or actions should be implemented to do so. As such, there is not one policy that Christians must support or advocate in order to deal with indigenous disadvantage.
The Bible is not an encyclopaedia of law or government. There are many questions it does not answer. Even where there is clear biblical teaching about a particular issue, this rarely translates neatly into a specific government policy or law.
Throughout history, Christians have typically thought of the Bible as the foundation, not a blueprint, for civil law. That is, the moral law (as summarised in the Ten Commandments) provides the foundational principles of law and morality which apply to all people at all times.
But there is not one single way of implementing the moral law. Timothy Keller argued that, while there is only one true gospel, “there is no culture-transcending way to express the truths of the gospel”, and that the gospel needs to be freshly articulated in each cultural context.[1] This is also true for law: morality is not relative, but it needs to be applied in each context. And how governments and lawmakers do this will depend on the circumstances.
In the gospels Jesus explained that divorce was permitted in Israel because of the people’s “hardness of heart” but noted that “from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5). Divorce is morally wrong because it is contrary to God’s will for marriage, but it was permitted as an allowance for the people.
That is, the Mosaic laws were accommodated to Israel’s sinfulness, permitting undesirable and sinful practices without either condoning or prohibiting them. The typical function of the laws in those contexts is, while permitting some wrongs, to regulate some aspects of those practices to mitigate their harshness or to prevent a greater evil.
If the “hardness of heart” principle applied to Israel — God’s covenant people — then there seems to be no reason why it would not apply today. In today’s overwhelmingly secular climate, rigorously enforcing the moral law is not likely to be possible (leaving aside the question of whether this would be desirable), and so civil lawmakers may have to make many allowances for the sins of the people.
A controversial example
Abortion provides a good illustration of these points. Abortion is a clear breach of the sixth commandment: “you shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). The civil ruler is “the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). The civil ruler should protect the innocent and the vulnerable, and there is none more vulnerable than the unborn.
The moral principle is clear: abortion is wrong. This has clear implications for law: civil governments should enact laws which protect the unborn. But how precisely should they do this? Should the law target the woman (who consents to the procedure, but may have been coerced or pressured into having the abortion), the person performing the abortion, or, if applicable, a partner or family member who pressured the woman (which would be difficult to enforce)?
In a culture which overwhelmingly considers that abortion should be legal, it may be that enacting a blanket ban would simply drive abortions underground or interstate. Any legislative change would need to be accompanied by an effort to change the hearts and minds of the people, or it may be ineffective. Christian legislators may have to entertain compromise. Should a Christian support the enactment of a law which reduces the number of abortions, but also endorses abortion as a legitimate choice?
These are not easy questions to answer. Even for an issue where the moral and legal principles are very clear, there remain difficult questions of wisdom and judgment.
Implications for unity and the church
These principles have several important implications.
The first is that Christians do not have an infallible guide to most questions of law, government and policy. Scripture has a great deal to say about justice, law and government but it is not an exhaustive encyclopaedia. This means that thinking through such questions requires wisdom, as well as prayerful and patient thought. Humility is warranted, as we recognise the fallibility of human reason, especially where Scripture does not clearly set out a position.
The second relates to the role of the church. It is important to bear in mind the distinction between the church as an institution and the organic church. The historic Presbyterian view is that the power of the institutional church and church officers is ministerial and declarative.[2] Their power is confined to the declaration of the Scriptures. That is, church officers and courts have the power to declare the truths of the Scriptures, and shepherd the flock by teaching, warning and exhorting.
Churches speak with the authority of God — but only to the extent that they accurately and faithfully speak biblical teaching. Ministers and office bearers may bind people’s consciences to the teaching of Scripture, but church officers have no right to impose their own views on their congregations, whether about politics, education, etc.
Biblical principles are relevant to many matters of policy and government. But the Scripture rarely prescribes one particular policy or course of action, and so the majority of such questions are matters of wisdom. This means that the church, and officer bearers within the church, should be cautious about how they engage with matters of government, and should be careful about pronouncing in favour of or against a particular government policy.
This does not mean that the church should never speak publicly about a political matter. But it should do so recognising that its role is confined to the declaration of the truths of the Scriptures. It may be appropriate for the church to speak to the moral and biblical aspects of a particular issue, but not take a side on which policy is preferable. That may be a difficult line to draw.
A final implication relates to unity within the church. Matters of wisdom are not matters where the church can compel a person to believe or act in a certain way, or where a Christian can rebuke another for supporting or opposing a particular policy. Christians are accountable to God alone, and the church must strive to maintain unity in matters of wisdom.
Approaching questions of law and government as matters of wisdom does not mean that those issues are unimportant, but it does mean that Christians should not treat them as matters of orthodoxy or biblical faithfulness. There is room for legitimate disagreement, and Christians should approach the matter in the spirit of Romans 14:10–12:
“Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,
‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
—————
Rev. Christopher Duke, CONVENOR, Church and Nation Committee, Presbyterian Church of Victoria.
Notes and references
[1] Timothy Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 17, 93.
[2] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church [1869] (Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth, 1960), 1:220, 228.
Commenti