Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
July 28, 1960
NUMBER 12, PAGE 8,13a

Beyond The Horizons

By Wm. E. Wallace, Box 399, McAlester, Oklahoma

The Church And Politics

In view of recent Catholic political gains, and because of ominous clouds regarding future Catholic gains, it is advised by some that we just preach the gospel and let the political events run their course.

There is much room for study of the Christian's relation to the state. Most of the discussion of the issue among churches of Christ has been centered on the particular aspect of the Christian's participation in warfare waged by the state. The idea of complete detachment from interests is advanced in David Lipscomb's book, "Civil Government". Civil government is of the devil according to Lipscomb's theory.

On the other side, many articles have been written, appearing especially in the Old Bible Banner. 1940-1946. These articles set forth a definite divinely ordained relation between the Christian and civil government.

Some tracts on both sides of the issue have been written and several papers have been dedicated in some degree to discussion of the Christian's relation to civil government.

The Bible does not classify the state per se with the satanic camp. Bible opposition to state is not to the state per se, but to the state which exceeds its bounds or fails in its mission.

So much is said of the Christians responsibility to the state in the New Testament (Romans 13, I Peter 2, I Peter 4:14-16, 3:15, I Timothy 3:1-5), the Christian cannot fail to be interested in state affairs. In the case of the Social Gospel we can admit that there are social implications in the New Testament faith without becoming Social Gospelers, and in the field of state affairs we can exercise a great deal of interest without becoming politicians.

The church as a local congregation or the church as the universal body of Christ is not authorized to project itself into community or national political and social affairs. However, individual Christians may perform in the field of the social and state implications of the gospel. As the Christian may use his influence as a citizen for charitable purposes, he may use this influence in state interests, "that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." There is a real danger that the civil intolerance of Catholic hierarchy will become a reality in this country. Are Christians to adopt the laizzere-faire attitude with regard to this problem? Would they hold their tongue on social issues such as liquor and gambling?

If Christians are to speak out on state issues, such as the advisability of a Catholic president, can they involve the church in their individual participation in political affairs? Can the preacher utter political omens from the pulpits of local congregations and use the publications for such utterances?

It appears that if there are social and political implications in the New Testament faith, the preacher is in his rights to utilize the means put at his disposal by the congregation for social and political utterances which come within the range of New Testament interests.

If this be true the preacher can well use the book of Revelation to warn against perversions of the divinely appointed civil functions. The pronouncements of Old Testament prophets against abuses and perversions in world governments might well be applied to current events.

It must be understood that it is not the purpose of the gospel, nor of the church, to transform social or political orders. Neither the gospel nor the church can be rightfully used as a means to social or political revolution. Nevertheless, the Christian individual is expected to be active in his surroundings, and he is justified in his efforts for good in social or political interests.

As to the church, as an institution — it can serve no purpose in these social and political issues other than that of offering opportunity for teaching which comes within the realm of Bible interests. The question which faces us is this: Shall the church offer a laizzere-faire attitude and remain aloof from such dangers as Roman Catholic domination of American government, or, shall she give opportunity for teaching designed to arouse righteous action against trends in the political realm which endanger our freedom under God and which violate Biblical principles?

It is certain that church and state interests overlap in certain vital areas. It becomes necessary for the church to provide opportunity for the presentation of Bible truth regarding the common interests of church and state. In the book Christians and The State by John C. Bennett, the matter is stated thusly:

The most we can learn from the New Testament is that there must be political authority, that the Christian should take a positive attitude toward the order-creating functions of civil government because in and through them the providence of God, is at work in preserving essential conditions for human life, and that the state should be kept in bounds and not be allowed to usurp the place of God. (Page 35 There are extremes to avoid — laizerre — faire on the one side, union of church and state on the other. But there is a relationship between the law of the state and the law of God. The interests and functions of state and church often meet. The church cannot operate in politics as an institution, but inasmuch as the gospel is better spread under systems where freedom of conscience and expression exist, the church can surely offer opportunity for warnings against restrictions on God-given rights.

It must be remembered that the church universal cannot speak or function in any realm, for there is no worldly universal structural organization. So the matter boils down to what the local churches may do in the field of state and social problems. It appears to me that the local congregation is fully within its rights to provide opportunity for preachers to wage against social and political trends which come within the interests of Bible teaching.

A word of caution is offered by Mr. Bennett in the book from which we quoted above. While the caution is offered in a denominational strain it nevertheless expresses the idea I want to present. Here it is:

Churches as organizations and Christian leaders whose chief area of competence is theology or Christian ethics should be self-restrained in these matters and not lay down the law on issues which are largely technical or which involve strategic judgments for which there is no Christian wisdom. (Page 271)

In conclusion I suggest that we do some research on the matter of church and state relationships. This is a field in which we have seen little attention since the days of World War II.

The Age Of Payola

The expose of various television deceptions and the payola revelations have stirred attention in the direction of our nation's moral standards. LOOK magazine, March 29, 1960 presented an article entitled "The Age of Payola". Payola is a word "coined to describe the money that disc jockeys took to plug certain records. Now the word is being applied to almost any shady deal involving a payoff."

One who is blessed with a Biblical attitude toward morality cannot help but be shocked upon reading the ugly revelations regarding current American ethics, or lack of ethics. Note some of the observations: "Whatever you do is all right if it's legal or if you disapprove of the law. It's all right if it doesn't hurt anybody. And it's all right if it's part of accepted business practice... So it would seem that our changing code of ethics is creating a fifth American freedom — the freedom to chisel... In the pursuit of the dollar anything goes... Moral indignation is out of fashion . . . . People are just not scared of God anymore."

A question hovers over the church: How badly are we afflicted? "Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals. Awake to soberness righteously, and sin not: for some have no knowledge of God: I speak this to move you to shame." (I Corinthians 15:33)

The LOOK article observes: "A moral relativism seems to have replaced the moral certitudes of the past." That statement means that people are considering morality to be something determined by necessity, To fake an insurance claim, or to cheat on the income tax report, are common moral lapses. God is a shield to them that walk in integrity (Proverbs 2:7). God forbid that we lose our integrity!

America's scientific advancement is far ahead of her spiritual maturity. I fear that our orthodoxy and polemic aptness surpasses our spiritual and moral qualities. Romans 6:1-2 rings in our ears: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?"

What Happened In Wichita?

American (Northern) Baptists are feeling the cost of their participation in the ecumenical movement. Some of the deep resentment in the denomination towards its compromising situation in connection with the National Council of Churches boiled to the surface in First Church, Wichita, Kansas — one of the Northern Baptist churches — the other day. The membership voted 1,170 to 235 to withdraw financial support from the American convention.

Ten laymen studied the ecumenical movement and reported to the deacons. Both deacons and church passed the following recommendation: "That the finance committee of First Baptist Church be and hereby is instructed to immediately withdraw any and all support of the American Baptist Convention or to any of its affiliated organizations that support it under the budget of First Baptist Church. For the reason that the said American Baptist Convention and its affiliated organizations are apparently in full support of the policies and plans are not in accordance with the faith and practices of First Baptist Church, Wichita."

The committee and deacons said frankly that they felt the most effective way for their protest to be heard was by withdrawal of funds that support the convention. In a prepared statement they said they believed the socialist and political activities of the National Council of Churches are not in accord with Baptist doctrines. The church, with 4,300 members, was the largest in the convention. — Editorial in Oklahoma Baptist Messenger, March 31, 1960.