We find ourselves in Romans chapter 13. And here in Romans chapter 13, we find what is one of the most well-known passages in the Bible, in a way. People know about Romans chapter 13. may not know where Romans 13 is, but you will hear quickly from Christians and non-Christians alike that Christians are obligated to obey the government, the authority, the law. You will hear that from Christians and non-Christians alike, usually in moments of convenience for either of those sides. However, the question comes, what does that mean? And there are ways that we look at this. Some people look at it in the divine right of kings sort of way, and that means anyone in any position of any authority is to be obeyed in any and everything that they say. Others take the other extreme and say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. There's a strict test for anyone who claims to be in authority, and if they don't pass every level of that strict test, you don't obey anything that they say. What is Paul teaching us here in Romans chapter 13? Here in this last portion of the book of Romans as we have come through the indicative portions or these doctrinal portions that tell us who we are in Christ, what Christ has accomplished on our behalf, what justification means, what sanctification means, what righteousness means. And we come to the therefore clause in chapter 12 and begin to apply these things with the imperatives. What does this particular imperative mean in Romans chapter 13? Well, I'm not going to answer that question in full today. I cannot. My desire today, quite simply, is to orient us to this text. Because I believe that we misapply and misuse this text because we are disoriented, as it were. We have no idea how to talk about government, politics, authority from a biblical perspective. Because we've never been taught how to talk about government power authority politics from a biblical perspective We've only been taught these things from a political perspective and then because of a misapplication of Romans 13 we're taught Now, we're not only not taught how to think about it from a biblical perspective, but we're taught that we shouldn't be thinking about it at all and just shutting our mouths and obeying whatever is said by whoever has a position of authority. Because that's not our ground. That's not our turf. We're the church. That's the government. G-U-B-M-I-N-T. That's how you spell that, by the way. It is a convenient and controversial text. It's extremely convenient and has been used for convenience sake. This text, for example, was used with regularity in Nazi Germany in order to tell the Lutherans to just shut up and let Hitler do what he wanted, which they did. Why? Pray tell. because Hitler was a duly elected official who had been placed in authority by the will of the people and therefore, according to Romans chapter 13, he was to be obeyed. By the way, why did they agree to elect a man like Hitler? Because their economy got so bad that they said things like, Don't worry about all those social issues, we just need to get our economy back on track. Does that sound familiar to anyone? As though economics are somehow divorced from theology and morality. But Hitler's Nazi Germany pushed hard on Romans chapter 13. You Lutherans, you got your Bible, you believe your Bible, you're all a soul of scripture people, says right there, obey, submit. Hitler's the authority, Hitler's the law, obey and submit. And by the time Christians in Germany woke up from their fog, Millions were dead at the hands of a duly elected political official. And ironically, when trials started happening, some of the same Christians who were screaming, Romans 13, Romans 13, were mocking military officials who said the same thing at their trials at Nuremberg. I was just obeying orders. And some of the same people, by the way, here in America during that same time, you know, we kind of whitewash history. Here in America during that same time, there wasn't this outcry when Hitler came to power. And Christians on this side of the pond too. Romans 13, Romans 13. Millions are murdered. Nazi officials go on trial for the murder of those millions and their defense. Romans 13, Romans 13. And again, some of those same folks who were screaming Romans 13 were looking at those people and saying, no, no, no, no, no. You should have known not to obey those orders. Really, why? Where's the line? Well, I mean, we all know where the line is, right? No, actually we don't. And if we don't talk about it and think about it and teach about it, we'll never know. We'll never know. By the way, it's not just Nazi Germany. Today in Zimbabwe, for those of you who don't know, Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, the leader of Zimbabwe, has crushed that country under the weight of his dictatorial rule. Zimbabwe used to be flourishing country with a flourishing economy now you can't even go and find the exchange rate for Zimbabwean dollars to US dollars because it just it got too out of control their currency is no longer recognized they have trillion dollar notes people in Zimbabwe now have to use other people's currencies because you used to have to carry your Zimbabwean currency like this to go to the store and do your grocery shopping. Just to have enough Zimbabwean dollars with you. People are literally dying in the streets in Zimbabwe under Mugabe's rule, but listen to this. from Zim Online. A newly elected Zimbabwean member of parliament says President Robert Mugabe was godsent and should not be challenged in next year's watershed polls. He's destroyed the country. And this man is saying you guys shouldn't even run against him. Why? Do I have to say? Quoting Romans 13 in the Bible that encourages people to subject themselves to the governing authorities, the retired army brigadier general said, only those involved in illegal activities were opposed to Mugabe's rule. But there is no authority except from God. Therefore, he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment, for rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. he said in his maiden speech in parliament yesterday. Don't even run against this man. Because Roman 13 says obey. So if the existing president says vote for me, obey. Because he's the authority and God put him there. Obey. Obey. Now again, we hear this and we say, no, come on. That crosses the line. Really, but where's the line? Because we are called to obey. We are called to submit. This is a familiar and a popular text, and what I want to orient us toward today is the way we read and think about this text. We're gonna spend several weeks here. First, there are four popular pulpit approaches to this issue. Role and relationship between the pulpit and politics. Governing the way we read and understand Romans 13. First, there is the separation of pulpit and politics. That's sort of the pietistic approach. Listen, folks, we're about the gospel. We're not about politics. We got no business running over into the political realm. That's the first approach. The second approach is the, not the separation, but the equation of the pulpit and politics. That's Rome. Vatican City, a political empire where the Pope rules and reigns so that he does not have to submit to anyone else's authority. Vatican City is its own country. so that the Pope has no authority above him on planet Earth. Thirdly, there's the integration of pulpit and politics. We see this in the moral majority, in the religious right. That Christianity and Christians in America are viewed as merely a political entity to be mobilized in order to change the culture. with our large, powerful voice to make our land righteous by enacting the right laws and electing the right leaders. Fourthly, there is the proclamation of politics from the pulpit. That's the position that I advocate. Not the pietistic position. No, no, no, no. This is church. We don't talk about politics here. That's foolishness. Not the equation of pulpit and politics. We're not looking to establish an empire. Amen? Christ is the king of kings and lord of lords, but his kingdom is not of this earth. Not looking to establish an empire. Or not looking to use Christians in America as a voting block. However, we must, we must, we must proclaim politics from the pulpit. Now I'm going to explain that statement, but for now I just want you to be uncomfortable with it. Because you are, and I know you are, because I know what you've been taught, and I know what you've heard, again and again and again. Now, as I say that, we must proclaim politics from the pulpit. Remember the context. Just like we have to put scripture in context, put my statement in context. I'm standing here saying we must proclaim politics from the pulpit, but this is a church that does not and will not have a 4th of July service. Why? Because we worship God in this place, not America. We do not and we will not pledge allegiance to anybody's flag in our worship services. Why? Because our allegiance is to Christ and this is His place. We did not have a special September 11th memorial service on our Sunday morning. Why? Because we worship Christ and the only memorial we have is the Lord's Supper. That's why. So remember that context when I say we proclaim politics from the pulpit. unashamedly and unapologetically so. Okay? Okay, but what does that mean? Are you getting ready to start a campaign? No, I'm not running for anything. But before I tell you what it means, let me tell you why you're uncomfortable. You're uncomfortable because of this long-standing myth of the separation of church and state. That long-standing myth of the separation of church and state is a myth that has led us to believe that it is always and everywhere inappropriate for pastors to talk about religious and political topics. Now, there are a couple of things that I want you to know and hear about this. One thing I want you to know and hear about this is that you've been misinformed. You've been miseducated. You don't know what the truth is as it relates to the separation of church and state. And I got some documents here. I don't usually bring this much stuff up here. But I have some documents here that I wanna read for you. We're afraid because of past and present abuses. We've seen them. and they're bad. We're afraid because of misinformation and because of miseducation, all that stuff is bad. One of the things that you've been taught is this, that in America there's always been this wall of separation between church and state, and that that's a good thing. By the way, if you understand that historically and accurately, I stand up and I say amen, hallelujah, praise the Lord, I am with you. Yes, wall of separation between church and state. Why? Because I know where that statement comes from. That statement comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association. Now why was he writing to the Danbury Baptist Association? Because they wrote to him. He wasn't even in the country at the time. I believe he was in France. They wrote to him. Why did the Danbury Baptist Association write to Thomas Jefferson? Because they were worried about something. What were they worried about? That the congregational church was going to be made the official church of the United States of America. And the Baptist said, no. So Thomas Jefferson writes back to the Danbury Baptist Association in order to assuage their fears and let them know that the United States of America will have no official state church, not least of which the Congregational Church. That's where he uses this phrase, there is a wall of separation between church and state. What he meant was that the federal government was not going to enact any laws. that would establish a state church in the United States of America. What he didn't mean was that religion and politics can't and shouldn't mix. Now, I say that's what he didn't mean, but can I prove it? Actually, I can. And I will. I'll prove it in a number of ways. First of all, What ended up being written for the Constitution of the United States? Again, this is not about, you know, let's just get... Constitutional lesson, where's the Word of God? I want you to understand why you have a hard time with Romans chapter 13. I want you to understand how you've been miseducated on this issue of the separation in church and state. Okay? That's why this is important. So, First Amendment to the United States. Here's the... Clause that's important. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There it is. That's it. That's all, folks. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That proves that Thomas Jefferson did not mean that religion and politics could not and should not mix. Because if he believed that, why is there a statement about religion in the Constitution? And what is the statement, by the way? Pastors shall not speak about political issues from the pulpit. First of all, if you believe that, then you have no idea what politics means. I'll tell you what it means later. There are very few things that we can talk about that are not political. Okay? Congress shall make no law. Now, one of the reasons that we are so uptight is because of the way that this has been misused and misapplied. Valedictorian, you get the highest grade point average in the school, that means you get to make a speech. Outstanding! Thank you so much, I cannot wait. Hey, can I quote Gandhi? Yes, you can quote Gandhi. Can I quote the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Yes, you can quote whoever that person is, you know. Can I quote Oprah? Yes, be in touch with your spirit. You know, I mean, you can, yes, you can quote all, can I quote Jesus? No, separation of church and state. Really, because those other people are religious and spiritual people, and it's okay if I quote them, but not Jesus. Why? Separation of church and state. Well, first of all, it's not in the Constitution. But what is in the Constitution is, Congress shall make no law. I'm not Congress. I'm a valedictorian. Now, that ought to be common sense, right? But it's not. Because you've been lied to. And that's why you're uncomfortable. Somebody stands up here and says something about politics. Because that kind of foolishness is so normal to you that when somebody stands up here and says politics, you go, oh, we can't do this. Certainly we can. Not only can we, but we must. We must. We have no choice. Secondly, I can demonstrate that Jefferson did not believe such a thing by going back before him, way before him, and during his time. When we go back way before him, we find things like this. Agreement of the settlers at Exeter in New Hampshire, July 5th, 1639. 1639, okay? Everybody knows about 1776 and so, okay. No, 1639. So in 1639, they get together in New Hampshire. Hey, early settlements here, early America here. This is our political heritage, by the way. So in 1639, they get together and they write out their laws. Now we're going to talk about some of these things next week and the week after, I'll tell you how we're gonna break this passage down. But for now, what we're doing is we're talking about whether or not it's appropriate for us to even discuss this because of this myth of separation of church and state. So in 1639, these people get together and they're gonna have a government here. They're gonna have laws here. Capital laws and then criminal laws. Now capital laws, that's the stuff that you can be put to death for. Let's look at the capital laws again. This is our political heritage that bleeds over into what we understand about common law and our founding and all this other stuff. One, idolatry. Wonder where that one came from. In fact, you don't have to wonder because there's an annotation at the end of the statement of the statute, Exodus 22.10, Deuteronomy 13.6. We have a long heritage of the separation of the Exodus 22, I'm sorry, 2220 and Deuteronomy 13.6. Blasphemy. That's another capital crime. How about this one? Witchcraft. Buggery. That's homosexuality, by the way. False witness. Man-stealing. Again, straight out of the scriptures. Cursing parents. You can be put to death in New Hampshire in the 1630s for cursing your parents. A rebellious son. By the way, the steps to dealing with a rebellious son, they get right out of the Bible. What about the criminal laws? Adultery. Fornication. Swearing. By the way, under swearing, listen to this. It is ordered by this assembly and the authority thereof, that if any person within this province shall swear rashly or vainly by the holy name of God... Long history of separation of... Help you if you believe that, okay? And I'll just do one more, profaning the Lord's day. This is the civil law of New Hampshire, the first civil law of New Hampshire. Yeah, well, that's just early on. Certainly, we became more enlightened by the time we got to our Declaration of Independence and certainly because, you know, we didn't have an official state church that there's this wonderful big wall of separation. Let me help you on that real quickly before we get back into this text. Again, we want to orient ourselves, right? Listen to this statement about pastors. It's from 1778, by the way. That he is determined by God's grace out of the Holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to his charge, and to teach nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which he shall be persuaded, may be concluded, and proved from the Scriptures, that he will use both public and private admonitions, as well to the sick as to the whole within his cure, as need shall require and occasion shall be given, and that he will be diligent in prayers and in reading of the same. that he will be diligent to frame and fashion his own self and his family according to the doctrine of Christ and to make both himself and them as much as in him lieth wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ that he will maintain and set forward as much as he can quietness, peace, love among all people and especially among those that are or shall be committed to his charge by the way, that doesn't come from an early denominational statement That comes from the Constitution of the state of South Carolina. That's 1778. That's during the life and times of Jefferson. And we're supposed to believe that all these guys got together. By the way, the majority of the states that founded this country had official religions of their state. The First Amendment does not mean that religion has no place in politics. The First Amendment means that South Carolina can have an official religion, but the United States of America can't have one that overrides South Carolina, or New Hampshire, or Delaware, or whoever, when they declare what their state religion is going to be. That's what it means. None of these things were undone by our Constitution. Again, you've been misled. You've been miseducated. By the way, here's another thing. Let me give you just one more. One more. Because I want you to just get this out in the open so we can talk about this, okay? This is from 1780. This, by the way, is Massachusetts. You know where the venerable Adams family, okay? John and John Quincy and those guys come from. We become our presidents. Massachusetts in 1780. Have you ever wondered what the phrase the pursuit of happiness means? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You know those things that we're You know, those inalienable rights from our creator, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. And people wonder, why didn't they say life, liberty, and property? Because that's the way usually you see it, life, liberty, and property. But they went life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And sometimes you hear people saying, you know, they didn't guarantee that you could, you know, find happiness or be happy, but that you could pursue happiness, meaning happy, ha, ha, ha, happy, right? Well, this document is within a few years of that document, and it talks about the pursuit of happiness. By the way, this is Massachusetts. Massachusetts, who gave us gay marriage in the United States, first state, and Massachusetts, who gave us this whole, you know, socialist healthcare plan that now our president is pushing on the whole country, that came from Massachusetts, okay? So that state, Massachusetts, way out there, from that state of Massachusetts, they can help us understand what the pursuit of happiness means if we go to their founding documents. Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1780. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instruction in piety, religion, and morality. Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. We have a long history of the separation of... That's a lie. That's a lie. Not only do we need to understand that in order to be comfortable about this discussion, But we also need to understand the very definition of politics. You know, you look at a modern dictionary, politics, activities associated with government, political life, power relationships in a given field. But if you look at older dictionaries, Webster's 1828, for example, I bet y'all surprised that I pulled that one out, right? Politics. the science of government, that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state for the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, The augmentation of its strength and resources and the protection of its citizens in their rights with the preservation and improvement of their morals. Politics as a science or an art is a subject of vast extent and importance. If we don't talk about politics, then whom do we believe is better equipped than us? Politics and morality. We're told, you cannot legislate morality. That is only true in the sense that legislation can't make people moral. Unfortunately, that's not the way we understand it. What we mean is, you can't enact legislation that has to do with morality. By the way, that phrase, that phrase means what it says. You can't legislate morality. You can't, through your legislation, make people moral. But the other part of it can't be true. Why? Because all legislation is moral. You can't legislate anything other than morality. Every piece of legislation is legislating some type of morality. So again, here's the irony. You can't legislate morality. Our culture takes that to mean you religious people close your mouth because you have morals and we don't. That means we can govern and you can't. And we go, Okay, I guess that is Romans 13. And then what do they write laws about? Marriage. You can't legislate morality, Christian. So you be quiet and you get out of this because you have morals and we don't, by the way. We need to have marriage between homosexuals. And do they say because of a political, no. They say because it's only right and fair, i.e. moral. You can't legislate morality. Abortion is between a woman and her doctor. What's between a woman and her doctor? That choice, which is what kind of choice? Moral. Yeah, but see, that's the social issues you're talking about. Okay, property. Property. How about our laws concerning property? Burglary, trespassing, squatting rights. What do those have to do with? The immoral usurpation of another person's property. In other words, it's morality. When you go to buy a piece of property, the person has to prove to you that they own the property. They have to prove to you where the boundaries of the property are. Right? Why? Because if they don't, they would be making an immoral sale of something that belongs to another person. Folks, there is nothing that we do politically that is not moral. Are the cobwebs clearing? Because the fact of the matter is, probably a good number of people right here sitting in this room Even if you don't make these arguments, truth be told, you don't have an answer for them. But you do know Romans 13, so what's the default position? Well, I guess you're right, Romans 13. You can't legislate morality. Well, I guess you're right, Romans 13. We'll just go out there and preach, well, no, not on the streets because that would be a political statement. So we'll preach in our churches to the people who are not in our churches so that as we preach in our churches, the people who are not in our churches will somehow, what? Pastors must preach politics and morals. We must. Why? Because government is about authority. And the Bible speaks clearly to it. Matthew 28, 18. Jesus came and said to them, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. We read it earlier this morning. Colossians 1, 15 to 17. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, for by him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things were created through him and for him, and he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. First Peter 2, 13 to 17. Be subject, for the Lord's sake, to every human institution. By the way, here's the ironing. Preacher, don't preach politics. So, what do I do with 1 Peter 2? Well, tell your people to obey authority. What authority? Political authority. Wait a minute, I thought I couldn't preach politics. No, no, no, no. You can preach politics enough to tell your people to not be involved in politics, unless they're just shutting their mouths and doing what they're told. Whether it be the emperor supreme or governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good, for this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorant and foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the emperor. And again, that brings us to our text. Politics has no place in the pulpit. Paul disagrees. Peter disagrees. Jesus disagreed. Let every person be subject. to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been instituted by God therefore because it's from God and instituted by God and for God therefore whoever resists the authorities resist the will of God excuse me resist what God has appointed and those who resist will incur judgment for rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, One must be in subjection not only to avoid God's wrath, God's wrath, God's wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. Can't separate those two. For because of this, you also pay taxes. For the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them. Taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. There's the passage. We cannot preach through this without talking about politics. We cannot. We cannot. Most pastors preach only one side of politics that tells Christians to obey authorities and avoid the side of politics that defines and restrains authority. Must we tell wives and children to submit to their husbands and fathers but avoid telling fathers the purpose and limits of their authority? Must we tell church members to submit to pastors, elders, but not remind elders of the qualifications and limits of their authority? How foolish is it then for people to insist that Christian churches stay out of politics? It's ridiculous. God's Word talks about submission and authority. It would be criminal For a pastor to merely talk about a wife's command to submit to her husband and not say anything to the husband about where his authority comes from and where its limits are. But we are supposed to do that with politics. How horrible would it be to say to children, Merely that they are to be in subjection to their parents, but not explain to children how parents derive their authority Why parents have that authority and what the limits are to that authority? That would be criminal. But we're supposed to do that with politics, right? How criminal is it to just talk about our obedience to pastors and church authorities but not talk about the other side of that? We have to. We must. And Romans 13 gives us an example of the same thing. Peter does it and Paul does it. He doesn't just say submit and obey. He tells you where the authority comes from, why the authority exists, and what the limits of the authority are. He tells you how to practice the authority as well as how to relate to the authority. And all of that is important. But because we've been miseducated on politics, amen, and because that miseducation has led to us being bullied and cowed, we've been okay for a very long time with the idea that somehow We can talk about submitting to authority, but we can't speak truth to authority. And we can't call for authority to repent before the God who gave the authority. And we can't teach how to exercise that authority. Hear this, and we're gonna talk about this more next week, but listen to me. There is a man in the White House right now who is a radical, godless neo-Marxist. His worldview is godless. It's a radical worldview. By the way, I wrote about this man's worldview a year before he became the president. Blogged about it, what he would do because of his radical worldview. Now, we're going to get to that in a while, okay? But here's what I want you to see. For 20 years, he sat under the teaching of Jeremiah Wright, who's a radical, heretical, neo-Marxist who teaches black liberation theology, wealth redistribution, and the like. So what happened? a pastor, discipled a man in his church, shaped that man's worldview, and now that man is in the political realm living out that worldview that he learned from his church. And if the Marxists are the only ones who are supposed to be talking about politics and teaching those things, And guess who are the only ones who are going to be living out their theology in positions of power? You guys be quiet, because your religion has no place in politics. The man who's our president has said as much. And every decision that he has made has been birthed from his theology. But because he too has been sold that same lie about this dichotomy, he thinks that his politics and his theology are two different things. Nothing could be further from the truth. So, Romans 13 and how we think about politics. First of all, we're going to deal with the issue of authority and submission. We had a whole weekend conference on this, and we'll refer back to some of those things. But this goes to the heart of what we believe about authority and submission. And for example, the question of jurisdiction. Again, we'll say more about this when we get to it, but here's another irony, okay, when it comes to jurisdiction. God has given us the home, the church, and the government, a political sphere, alright? Now, we believe that these places have jurisdictions and that they are to be checked when they move beyond their jurisdictions, right? No, actually we don't. Let me explain to you. The husband is here and he has authority in his home. Now, when the husband is abusing that authority, We believe that, you know, that man's a member of the church and he's abusing his wife or he's abusing his children. God has given us the church to discipline that man. And if he's not a member of the church, God has given us the civil magistrate to discipline that man because of what he's doing to his family, right? Because his jurisdiction is not a limitless jurisdiction. We get that, right? Okay, now we have the church, and God has given the church jurisdiction. But the church cannot come over beyond its jurisdiction. I cannot look at a man in our church, for example, who has a business and say, listen, as a pastor, here's how I'm telling you to market your business. Why? It's beyond my jurisdictional authority. I have no right to do it, and we all recognize that, and we would all see that and go, oh, no sir, you're outside of your jurisdictional authority, that's wrong, you can't do that, okay? But watch this, because of what we've been taught about Romans 13, we don't apply that to the government. So when the government usurps its jurisdiction, We say, uh-uh, Romans 13, respect authority. Whoa, whoa, whoa, the Father's got authority. He gets checked, the church has authority, it gets checked, but the government has authority, and I can't check the government because of Romans 13? What are you thinking? Do you see this, folks? And so, here's what happens. Government's unchecked in its authority over here. It belongs in this realm. Okay, here's a pulpit over here. Here's the government over here. Government's unchecked in its authority. And so the government decides it wants to expand its authority. And over here, we're going, ah, Romans 13, respect the government. That's their authority. Don't get political. Well, what happens when the government comes all the way over here? And, for example, redefines marriage. You're not supposed to be talking about politics from the pulpit. See, actually, marriage is our territory, not theirs. They can't come over into our territory, claim it as their own, and then make us stop talking about stuff we've been talking about for thousands of years just because they decide they want it. It's like the church coming into your home saying, actually, your kids are mine. I'm sorry, churches do that. But you know what I'm saying. That's usurpation, okay? And what I want you to see as we walk into Romans chapter 13 is that if we don't have a proper understanding of these things, we end up walking through life and living in a way that just won't work. We can't function, we're all bound up, okay? Are we called to submit to authority? Yes, we are. And to exercise authority? Yes, we are. But in order for us to do that, we've got to understand what God says about authority. So what are we going to do? We're gonna talk about submission to authority next week, those first couple of verses. Then we're going to talk about the exercise of authority in the following week, okay? The exercise of authority. And by the exercise of authority, I don't just mean what they are doing, okay? You know one of the great problems that we have, again, about Romans 13? And this goes to the abuse in our government as well. You know the job of the president, It wasn't ever really considered all that big. I don't know if you recognize that or not. It wasn't ever considered all that big. Now, we think the presidency is everything. Can I tell you that who your sheriff is is more important than who the president is? And most of you don't know who your sheriff is? Nor do you care. Repent. Repent. So when we talk about the exercise of authority, we're not just going to talk about, in theory, what government officials are supposed to do, but we're going to talk about, in our context as Americans, how you have to exercise your authority. You live in a constitutional representative republic. This is the way you're supposed to act. Biblically, we're going to talk about that. And then we're gonna talk about the support of authorities, okay? Before we close, one of the things that governs this whole thing and the way we approach this issue is our eschatology. And I don't think we recognize that sufficiently. For example, the predominant eschatology of our day is dispensational premillennialism, okay? That's the eschatology that dominates especially modern American thinking. It's premillennial dispensationalism. And there's a number of reasons for that. There's this whole series of events that brought dispensational premillennialism to the forefront, okay? So here in the 1800s, it's developed. It's not old, folks. Dispensational premillennialism is not old. So it's developed in the 1800s. Early 1900s, there are all these prophecy conferences that are happening. The Schofield Study Bible is published with its study notes, and it is a dispensational pre-millennial study Bible. It's the first and most popular study Bible out there. So now they've got the field, alright? And then in 1948, Israel becomes a nation, and that's the validation for them of Their eschatology all these things come together and snowball and the end result is dispensational premillennialism is the most dominant Eschatological view in our culture and most people don't even they think they don't have an eschatology But they're waiting for the antichrist to be revealed and for the tribulation to start and for the rapture and all that. Okay these terms Dispensational premillennialism. I don't have a theology But when the rapture comes, okay, you have an eschatology, you just don't know it. And because dispensational premillennialism is so dominant, that's the eschatology that most people have. Now, dispensational premillennialism believes that ultimately the world is moving toward Armageddon. Things are gonna get worse and worse and worse, then there's gonna be a big clash, and Jesus is gonna come back, and bam, we're gone. Now, if you take that to its logical conclusion, and think about politics, Number one, you don't think about politics long term, because it's all going to burn, man. Things are not going to get better, they're going to get worse. Number two, you have an extremely pro-Israel, pro-Zionist eschatology. American foreign policy is dominated by dispensationalism today. Do I think we ought to hate Israel? No. Do I think we ought to love them because they're Israel? No. Because I believe that the church is the true, real, new Israel, Jew and Gentile alike. And that those people over there in that piece of land over there, they don't have eschatological significance to me. But only democracy in that part of the world. They like us. They're our friends. Anything jumps off over there, I want them on our side. I love them. But currently, our country's position toward Israel is not driven by that kind of understanding, but by the dominant role that dispensational premillennialism plays in our theology. And so what it does is it downplays our role in politics in our everyday life and elevates our foreign policy as it relates to Israel, which is ironic and hypocritical. Secondly, post-millennial optimism. Ultimately, what we're going to do is usher in the millennial reign of Christ by everything getting progressively better and better and better until, you know, here and now we experience the millennial reign of Christ because of our advance. So we've got to take over the government for our eschatological purposes. Okay? That creates a political optimism, but again, Different kind of strategy. Amillennialism's already-not-yet approach. That can go either way. You have amillennialists who are very negative and pessimistic. You have amillennialists who are very optimistic, okay? But there tends to be this view of two kingdoms and the role that we play in both of those kingdoms. Now, some only play up the importance of the role that we play in one of those kingdoms and not the other, and vice versa. But I believe that we are citizens of two kingdoms. And my optimistic amillennialism won't let me make little of politics. It's too important. But it also won't let me make much of politics, because it's not our hope. Our hope is Christ. That's our hope. That's our only hope. And so, do we engage in the political realm? Folks, you have no choice. You woke up this morning and you turned on your lights. The rate you pay for your electricity, it's political. You turned on your water. Whom you pay for your water and how much, political. You took some vitamins or some medicine. The people who said that those things were okay for you to take? The FDA. Political. You ate some food. FDA again. Political. You drove over here in a car that had to pass some tests. Guess where they came from? Political. You put your seatbelt on. Why? Because you're scared to fly through the windshield? No. Political. You drove the speed limit, or you watched for police as you didn't. Why? Political. Political. You put gas in your car. Most of what you paid for it. Political. Political. You cannot get away from politics. So stop buying that lie that says you have to as a Christian. You cannot. And here's the last question I want to leave you with. If not us, then who? If we are not going to be salt and light in that regard, then what are we saying? Politics is for those people who really don't love, trust, or obey the God from whom the authority comes. Really? I hope you don't believe that. And if you don't believe it, let's stop thinking like it. Let's pray.