Praying for Kings
This article was published in Issue No. 34, April-June 2004.THE
apostle The apostle Paul teaches us that the church has a duty towards
the state when he writes: “I exhort therefore, that, first of
all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be
made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we
may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty”
(1Tim.2:1,2). What is involved in this duty? We need firstly to
have a right understanding of the church’s relation to the state.
By the state we mean the legislature (the body empowered to make and
repeal laws) and the judiciary (the body empowered to administer those
laws); in our country this is parliament and the courts. In some lands
these two branches of state are joined; the government operates the
courts and administers justice. Both the type of legislature and
judiciary vary widely. The legislature may be a single individual
– as in monarchy or dictatorship. Or there may (in theory at
least) be no proper legislature – as in anarchy. Then the
conscience of each individual becomes the supreme authority (see
Deut.12:8; Judg.17:6). Between these two extremes there is a variety of
other systems, divided into two main classes: oligarchy – where
power rests with a few, and democracy – where power rests with
the many. It comes as a shock for us to learn that the Bible
prescribes none of these forms, not even democracy! The most common
method of government in the Bible is monarchy, but Scripture does not
lay this down as an absolute requirement. What is commanded is
theocracy. By this we do not mean clericalism, or rule by priests,
which is really ecclesiocracy, as in the statelet called the Vatican;
rather we mean the rule of God. A nation may be a monarchy, an
oligarchy or a democracy, but God requires it to be theocratic all the
same. God’s will must be done in the collective life of a people.
Blessings and curses are promised alternately depending upon whether a
nation is God-honouring or God-dishonouring. This refers to its
corporate life, not merely to what a percentage of its citizens
individually believe and do (Psa.33:12; Prov.14:34). There are
four ways in which the church may be related to the state. Firstly, the
church may dominate the state, as in countries where the Church of Rome
holds sway. The papacy claims temporal power as well as spiritual and
it has only been the rise of democracy in many countries that has
curbed these powers. This relation is sometimes known as Ultramontanism.
Alternatively the state may dominate the church, as remains the case
with the Church of England: parliament governs her doctrine and worship
and the prime minister has a significant role in the appointment of her
bishops and archbishops; this is known as Erastianism. Thirdly, many today, in modern democracies such as America, hold to Voluntaryism, that is, the complete separation of church and state. It
is the teaching of many of the Reformed Confessions however that church
and state, both being divine institutions, should cooperate. They have
separate governments, officers and jurisdictions but they are ordained
by the same God and owe duties and allegiance to the same Lord. This
relation is termed Establishment. Church and State in this view
are twin departments under the crown of Jesus Christ, each under
obligation to help the other, and neither usurping the prerogatives of
the other. The church is not to meddle in those affairs that are
strictly civil or political and the state is not to interfere in
matters strictly spiritual. Yet though the promotion of religion is not
a direct end of civil government it is nonetheless an end which civil
governors, in the execution of their official functions, may be called
to aim at. The civil magistrate does not have power in sacred things, but he does have power about sacred things. It
is not the duty of the church to agitate for a particular system of
government. Rather it is her duty to advance God’s rule. She does
this supremely by preaching the gospel, which when blessed by the Lord
changes men’s hearts and brings them into subjection to Christ
and into His church on earth. But she also has a duty towards the state
as outlined by Paul to Timothy. It is fourfold. PrayingPrayer
is the first priority. Four terms are used, emphasising how involved
the church is to be in this duty. Her praying is to be comprehensive
(“for all men”) and specific (“for kings, and for all
that are in authority”). She is to pray for chief magistrates and
those under them. When Paul wrote the kings of the earth were heathen
and enemies of the church. The believers were perhaps tempted to
despise them in return but God will have some of them to be saved
(vv.3,4) and so He commands His church to pray to this end. We
note why the church is to pray for kings: “that we may lead a
quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” We all
desire peace, but why do we want it? There is one great reason
warranting us to pray for such a condition – that godliness and
honesty may flourish. Who better to advance that than Christian
magistrates? What the Church is required to pray for in behalf of
magistrates they are bound to promote. Scripture shows us that rulers
under all dispensations are to promote godliness (2Sam.23:3; Prov.8:15).
Psalm
2 teaches that rulers who in their public capacity opposed Christ
(vv.1-3) are similarly to submit to Him (vv.10-12). Government, like
education, welfare and every other good work must be affected by
Christ’s redemption. As God Christ is sovereign over all, but as
Mediator He is also king – king of saints and king of nations.
He has an inheritance for which He is to “ask” (v.8). His
intercession is the basis of our praying for the conversion of the
nations, including their rulers. Christ is Lord of all and the state
does not have the luxury of being neutral in relation to God: no-one
has that luxury (Luke 11:23a). GuidingIf magistrates are
bound to promote godliness then they need the guidance of Scripture
which tells men what godliness is (1Pet.2:14). Governors must be
informed as to what constitutes “evil-doing” and
“welldoing” if they are to punish the practitioners of the
one and praise the doers of the other. The church should offer guidance
to the state in moral matters as outlined in the second table of the
law. And since ‘spiritual’ actions are also either good or
evil the state has a duty in regard to these, to punish or to praise.
Therefore the church must inform the state about specifically religious
matters too. In the Old Testament we see the church guiding the state
(2Chron.19:8-11). The civil and religious leaders had distinct but
complementary roles. It is no mere coincidence that we find
civil/religious partnerships raised up for the good of Israel: Moses
and Aaron; Joshua and Eleazar; David and Abiathar; Solomon and Zadok;
Hezekiah and Azariah; Zerubbabel and Joshua. Civil rulers may
call a synod of ministers to consult with them about religious matters.
This is seen in the New Testament in Herod’s time (Matt.2:1-6).
He was a wicked king but the principle holds good. Would we not be
delighted if our Prime Minister consulted with men of God over the
Bible’s teaching on the sanctity of life, crime and punishment,
marriage and divorce, etc.? AdmonishingIt is the
church’s duty to remind the magistrate that there is a higher
authority than man’s. The king’s law is not supreme but
God’s. The idea that the people’s will is supreme and
unchallengeable is not biblical. Attempts at reform are really an
admission that there is a higher principle. Campaigns based on
‘freedom’, ‘justice’ or ‘equality’
have led to changes in public opinion and also the law on important
matters. Once sodomy was a bad thing; since 1968 it has been legal: it
is now officially a good thing! The church must challenge this moral
relativism, a symptom of a rotten society. SupportingThe
separation between church and state should never amount to the
separation of Christianity and the state. Thomas Chalmers wrote:
“We hold that every part and function of a commonwealth should be
leavened with Christianity, and that every functionary, from the
highest to the lowest, should in their respective spheres, do all that
in them lies to countenance and uphold it.” The Reformed
faith embraces the ‘organic’ idea in religion. It is
involved in the covenant of grace. It is woven into the Biblical
revelation (Gen.18:19; 35:1-3). In Exodus 20:10 we see that the head of
the house is to secure obedience in Sabbath-observance from all
“within thy gates.” This was the place where elders, judges
or kings sat officially, the civic centre of the community: therefore
it means not simply “all who are within your territory” but
“all who are under your civil jurisdiction.” The individual
must keep the Sabbath but the civil magistrate, in his capacity as a
magistrate, is also to take all proper measures to ensure that the
Sabbath is kept within the sphere of his jurisdiction. The Westminster Confession extends this principle to cover all the commandments. The
church is to ensure obedience from her own members in those things
which pertain to them, but she is also to support the state in its
God-appointed duties, and to be helpful to it. Equally their officers
must submit to Christ the Lord of all, as those who must give account
at the last day, not only as private individuals but also as they have
been public figures. |