Courts and the Cause of Christ: Why Christians Need to Care
_______________________________________________
Here is the essay with the footnotes...
Courts and the Cause of
Christ: Why Christians Need to Care
Sometime between now and June, the U.S. Supreme Court will
render its decision in the Masterpiece
Cakeshop case. This is the case in which owner and
cake artist Jack Phillips was taken to court because he could not in good
conscience design custom items that celebrate events or express messages in
conflict with his religious beliefs.
Jack Phillips is motivated by his Christian beliefs and is attempting to
faithfully fulfill his deeply rooted religious beliefs. He is seeking justice in the arena of
law.
Another case—this one in Arizona—is Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix,
in which Christian owners Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski are seeking to stop an
overreaching city ordinance from forcing them to design and create custom
artwork expressing messages that violate their core religious beliefs. Without the invalidation of this city
ordinance, Duka and Koski are potentially liable for fines and jail time if
they decline to create artwork for same-sex weddings. They too are seeking justice in the legal realm.
But why should Christians care about cases such as
this? Do cases like this take us
away from the centrality of gospel proclamation? Shouldn’t Jack Phillips, Joanna Duka, and Breanna Koski just
lay down their rights in the face of opposition for the sake of being like
Jesus, who “while being reviled, he did not revile in return; while suffering,
he uttered no threats, but kept entrusting him to him who judges righteously”
(1 Peter 2.23)?
I want to argue that the pursuit of justice is not only a
good in and of itself but, also, that these legal cases can serve the cause of
the gospel.
Christians in the
Public Sphere
Christians who make use of the legal system to ensure that
government respects their freedoms protected by the First Amendment do this out
of a sense of obligation to honor God.
Their deeply held religious beliefs about God and the Bible move them to
stand for truth in the public realm.
Their devotion to God and the Bible is not merely a private affair of
the heart. Christians believe the
truth of Jesus and his kingdom morality are matters that touch all of
life. The most basic Christian
confession, namely that “Jesus is Lord,” has implications for the public and
political domain. Theologian John
Frame aptly notes:
As God’s Spirit penetrates people’s
hearts through the gospel, those people become new creatures (2 Cor.
5:17). They take their faith into
every sphere of life, including the workplace, politics, economics, education,
and the arts. And in all these
realms, they seek to glorify God.[1]
In his essay “Why
Christians Should Influence Government for Good,” Wayne Grudem lists a
number of reasons why Christians can and should be involved in the political
and judicial realm.[2] His list includes the following:
1.
God calls Christians to do “good works.”
2.
Influencing government for good is a way to love
our neighbors.
3.
Obeying what God tells us is doing spiritual
good because it glorifies God.
4.
Good and bad governments make a huge difference
in people’s lives, and in the church.
5.
Christians have influenced governments
positively throughout history.
I will leave it to readers to read Grudem’s full discussion
of these points, but he details the many biblical examples in both the Old and
New Testaments where believers have exercised significant governmental
influence. Examples include
Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah, Esther, the prophets, John the Baptist, and
Paul.
These insights from Frame and Grudem are enough to justify
the Christian’s concern and involvement in the political and judicial
arenas. In addition to this,
however, there is the example of the apostle Paul in the book of Acts that
shows how a proper use of legal redress actually serves the gospel and the
mission of the Church.
Paul’s Use of the
Courts in the Book of Acts
The book of Acts is filled with legal settings, and nearly a
quarter of the book is occupied with Paul’s trials and defenses.[3] In particular, a section from Acts 16 will
illustrate something of Paul’s interface with the Roman legal system and allow us
to draw some applications for our time.
That chapter contains the narrative of Paul’s ministry in
Philippi. As is often the case in
the book of Acts, Paul’s ministry causes controversy. The specific cause in Philippi is the exorcism of a slave-girl
being pimped for prophetic profit.
Paul casts out a “spirit of divination” from the girl, and when the men
using this girl for financial gain see their potential for making money
diminished, they bring Paul and Silas before the Roman governmental authorities. The judgment is swift. They are beaten with rods and thrown
into prison. There are then some
exciting details about an earthquake that opens the prison doors and how the
jailer and his family come to faith in Jesus Christ. For our purposes, however, the focus is on verses 35-40:
35Now when the day came, the
chief magistrates sent their policemen, saying, “Release those men.” 36And
the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The chief magistrates have
sent to release you. Therefore come out now and go in peace.” 37But
Paul said to them, “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are
Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away
secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.” 38The
policemen reported these words to the chief magistrates. They were afraid when they heard that
they were Romans, 39and they came and appealed to them, and when
they had brought them out, they kept begging them to leave the city. 40They
went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia, and when they saw the
brethren, they encouraged them and departed.
We could ask a number of potential questions about this
event. When given the information
of release, why did Paul not simply leave? Paul knew from Jesus that he was called to suffer (Acts
9.16). Why not just receive the
suffering and go forward? When
other apostles were unjustly persecuted, they left their accusers “rejoicing
that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for his name” (Acts 5.41).
Why didn’t Paul do this? Why protest and demand legal redress in
light of his Roman pedigree?
A couple of answers are worth noting. Paul is concerned for justice and the
people of God. First, consider the
issue of justice. Paul knows the
Roman law code and appeals to its provisions, which forbid a magistrate from
beating a Roman citizen without due process of a trial conviction. No one is claiming the Roman law code
is a perfect manifestation of justice, but Paul can appeal to a common grace
provision in that law code which is consistent with justice. Although Paul is called to a path of
suffering as announced by Jesus, there is no divine mandate to maximize suffering. As theologian Steven
Tracy notes,
Scripture does not sanctify avoidable
suffering. Christ repeatedly
avoided physical assault, most often from the Jewish leaders (his authorities)
by hiding (John 8:59), by maintaining physical separation from his abusers
(Matt. 12:14-15; John 11:53-54), and by eluding them (John 10:31, 39). Other godly individuals in Scripture,
such as Paul and David, also repeatedly fled physically abusive authorities (1
Sam. 19:12; 27:1; Acts 9:22-25; 14:5-6; 17:8-10, 14). Jesus did not teach his disciples simply to accept abuse
(evil); instead he taught them to pray that God would deliver them from it
(Matt. 6:13).[4]
At this point, someone may ask why Paul did not assert his
Roman citizenship rights earlier—before being beaten with rods? One can only speculate given the
silence of the text, but it is possible that he and Silas did assert their
citizenship but were drown out in the confusion of the event.[5] Whatever the explanation on that issue,
it is clear that Paul does eventually assert his Roman citizenship by appealing
to Roman law for justice.
But there is more.
This is not a mere quest for personal justice. There is also a strategic concern for the gospel ministry
which has birthed the fledging church in Philippi. To allow this injustice to stand might mean the civil
magistrate would be emboldened to perpetuate further injustices upon the newly
formed group associated with Paul and Silas. By seeking proper legal redress, Paul and Silas provide
protective covering for the church.
New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce comments:
Paul’s insistence on an official
apology may have served to some degree as a protection to the members of the church
which had been planted in Philippe during the period of his stay there.[6]
Fellow New Testament specialist I. Howard Marshall also
recognizes that for Paul and Silas to simply have left without seeking justice
“could have set a dangerous precedent for the future treatment of missionaries
and also could have left the Christians in Philippi exposed to arbitrary
treatment from the magistrates.”[7] So, in this instance, seeking justice
is good for the missional advance of the gospel.
Understanding the
Text and the Times
Paul’s example in Acts 16 is only one case from the New
Testament, but it is a perspective to take note of since it demonstrates
concern for public justice and the gospel. The interplay between moral mandate and contemporary
application is always tricky. Even
within the New Testament itself, there is a spectrum of responses to the civil
government. Torleiv Austad, in his
essay, “Attitudes
Towards the State in Western Theological Thinking,” argues that the New
Testament’s perspective regarding the state was neither principled renunciation nor uncritical acceptance. He writes,
The
apparently contradictory attitude can be illustrated by comparing Romans 13 and
Revelation 13. In both cases Christians are confronted with the
Roman state. While the governing authorities according to Romans 13
respect elementary civil rights, the same state in Revelation 13—about forty
years later—is seen as the beast from the abyss. Therefore the
attitude of Christians has changed from obedience to
disobedience. Within the eschatological horizon of the NT the
relationship between Christians and the governing authorities is never fixed;
it is complex, sensitive and changing.[8]
In this quotation, Austad stresses
the believer’s response of either obedience or disobedience to the governing
authorities. His general line of
thinking can be expanded to include the kinds of responses the governing
authorities have to the believer’s concerns. It may be the case that an ever-increasing secularized civil
sphere is becoming less concerned with Christians’ concerns for justice, but
this ought not to stop Christians from appealing to those common grace notions
embedded in our legal traditions.
This is what Paul did in his Roman context. Similarly, when Christians today in the United States seek
legal remedy for the diminishment of their constitutionally protected freedoms,
it can serve the cause of justice and the gospel.
The constitutionally governed law
codes that Americans navigate at the local and federal levels are seasoned with
common grace elements of justice.
As long as possible, we ought to utilize these elements in the cause of
justice and the gospel.
Christians should eagerly support
and pray for the efforts of Jack Phillips, Joanna Duka, Breanna Koski, and
others like them as they seek justice before the courts of our land. Much like the apostle Paul, their
victories will continue to hold open the door of religious freedom for all of
us.
[1]
John Frame, “In Defense of Christian Activism vs Michael Horton and Meredith
Kline” (May 21, 2012) online: https://frame-poythress.org/in-defense-of-christian-activism-vs-michael-horton-and-meredith-kline/.
[2]
Wayne Grudem, “Why Christians Should Influence Government for Good” online: http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Why-Christians-should-influence-government-booklet.pdf.
[3]
“One of the puzzling features of Acts is the amount of time Luke spends
describing in detail the trial and defenses of Paul. Almost one-fourth of the whole book of Acts (chaps. 22-28)
is occupied with this topic.” D.
A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An
Introduction to the New Testament—2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 2005), 303. “Acts is a
book of trials. Sixteen formal and
informal, investigative and quasi-judicial trials occur.” John W. Mauck, Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense
of Christianity (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 84—see page 85-86
for chart of all the trials in Acts.
[4]
Steven Tracy, “Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering in 1
Peter” Calvin Theological Journal 41
(2006), 294. Online: https://mendingthesoul.org/wp-content/uploads/DV-in-Church-1-Peter.pdf.
[5]
John Mauck also notes the context of bigotry in the charges mentioned in verses
20-21: “The accusation of being Jewish is intended to inflame the Philippian
magistrates through appeal to racism, anti-Semitism, or fear of foreigners.” Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense
of Christianity (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 125.
