Let us not fall back on the importance of church growth or family solidarity as an excuse for neglecting the civil magistrate.  There are those who would excuse themselves with an argument like this:

My understanding of how the kingdom comes would direct me toward a different emphasis, one that operates based upon a bottom up, decentralized approach, rather than a reliance on a top down policy. The emphasis for reform cannot and must not be civil action. It must begin in the lives of fathers. Let’s try our hand first at successfully turning out a righteous, non-rebellious generation without losing our children.

The Top-Down Argument

There are elements of truth in this statement, but I fear it runs contrary to the pattern we observe in the Old Testament.  In spite of the fact that individuals and families were in disarray, God still addressed disobedience and expected compliance to His law at every level:  individual, family, church growth, and nation.

God did not excuse or delay obedience to His law at the level of civil government.  For example, in Micah 3: 1, 5, 11 the rulers, prophets, and priests are all called to repentance and conformity to God’s law in the present.  The need for church growth notwithstanding.

The prophets called the Kings to repentance and did not focus exclusively on teaching individual families and church growth.  This is not “top-down,” it is “multi-level” responsibility.

The “top-down” argument is an excuse to relive us from our Biblical responsibility at every level.  Frankly, I think that the emphasis in the Old Testament is on kings, not on fathers.  Saying this does not dismiss the importance of church growth or of family growth.  But, Psalm 2 calls kings to repentance, not fathers.

Mending Church-State Relations

Differs From Political Action, Per Se

Please remember, we are not talking about political action here.  We are talking about the Biblical doctrine of church and state.  We are talking about a Biblical emphasis on evangelism and discipleship being focused on civil magistrates, especially when it comes to the efforts of church leaders.

The church has a positive responsibility to the state that it cannot shirk, regardless of whatever responsibilities it may have to individuals, families or church growth.  If the state is way out of line it is the church leaders that must shoulder the responsibility to call it back into line.  That is the clear teaching of the Old Testament.

Examples are everywhere:  Samuel and Saul, Nathan and David, Elijah and Ahab, and on and on.  Ambrose rebuked Theodosius and Deacon Alcuin crossed the English Channel to instruct Charlemagne.

In like manner the elders of your local church need to be in touch with the Mayor, the County Council members, etc.  Laymen can help, but elders must lead in this matter.

The Reformers (Calvin, Knox, etc) did not limit the Reformation to individuals, families, and church growth, but applied it at every level of society.  Calvin was active in the City Council and Knox was active at the national government.  This in spite of the fact that they were very concerned about reclaiming and purifying the doctrine of individual justification before God.

In other words, they did not resort to the “top-down” excuse.  The “top-down” argument sounds spiritual at first blush, but I don’t think it stands up to the standard of Scripture.  Upon examination, it is actually found to be a rationale for passive disobedience.

Not An Either/Or Proposition

In summary, it is not an either/or proposition.  Church leaders in the Old Testament and during the Reformation called for conformity to God’s law at every level of society, including the civil magistrate.  They recognized this as their Biblical obligation.  They did not limit their ministry to church growth and the family.

But today, instead of engaging the enemy we retreat into our homes to nurture our families.  So the question is:  At what point in the past 500 years did God change the rules that applied all the way from Old Testament times to the Reformation, that would excuse church leaders today from this obligation to confront and instruct the civil magistrate?

For More Information