When Jesus said, "Render to Caesar [government] the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's," he was establishing a distinction between the worldly realm of government and the spiritual realm of religion. This distinction leads us to two principles:
First, the government should not govern "the things that are God's," namely, the matters of spirit and faith. In other words, the government has no rightful authority to interfere in spiritual matters or religious faith. It may not infringe upon the church's right to govern itself. It may not come up with legislations that could take away the freedom of religion. This implies that every individual must be given the liberty to follow whatever religion he or she chooses. The founding members of the US Constitution, for example, clearly understood this principle when they wrote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
When a government intrudes into God's realm of spirit and faith, it has crossed the line. When a government denies the freedom of religion, believers must obey God rather than men. To overstep its realm of divinely sanctioned authority is to defy God who alone deserves our highest allegiance. All human government is subject to this Higher Power.
But what about the government extending support to churches and to religion in general? This is certainly acceptable as long as these actions are part of promoting the common welfare of its citizens and they are rendered to all without discrimination. The government's responsibility is to show fairness to all alike; its role is not to judge the faith or non-faith of the people.
Second, the church may not interfere in the affairs of the government. This would mean, for instance, that various church leaders in the Middle Ages were wrong to claim a right to select emperors or to assert their authority over them. The "things" which God has specifically entrusted the government are the promotion of common welfare, maintenance of civil order, keeping the peace, punishment of wrongdoers, protection of the innocent and collection of taxes to administer these assignments. To ensure that these duties are carried out, the government could also issue orders covering an entire population and use force or punishment on any violator. These are the rights God has given to the state.
As a person whose mission was not of this world, Jesus refused to take authority in a realm of civil government that was not assigned to him. For example, he refused to decide a dispute over an inheritance between two brothers. He paid his taxes to the Roman government rather than initiating a political campaign of revolt against it. Even the apostle Paul did not use his apostolic authority to encourage converted slaves to rebel against their earthly masters.
In our present Naga context, no association of churches or religious denomination has the right to impose its faith upon the government or discriminate other non-Christian groups which are part of our civil society. Of course, individual believers and churches can influence the making of government policies by lobbying or fielding their own political candidates; they can write petitions to elected leaders and even express their political views through demonstrations. All these actions may be adopted as members of the society, but not necessarily as members of the church. To drag the name of the church or Christ into something which is purely political or participate in a protest that requires the use of force is biblically wrong.
Does this mean that the church should not take position on issues such as the election of civil leaders, environmental concerns, abortion, child labor, liquor consumption, and so forth? Indeed, the church has the right to take position on any issue. Also, it can come up with rules of restrictions and execute disciplinary actions for behavioral licenses for members of her own community. But as a religious body, it may not assume political authority over the civil society and it may not impose its own laws on non-church members, let alone apply force on them.
In other words, the church and the government have no authority over each other's appointed positions. One is not higher in rank or more sacred in service than the other. Both are God's ordained institutions to serve the people in different ways and in different areas. As for believers, this means that we have two roles: one is to be good representatives of Christ on earth and the other is to serve as responsible citizens of the state.
First, the government should not govern "the things that are God's," namely, the matters of spirit and faith. In other words, the government has no rightful authority to interfere in spiritual matters or religious faith. It may not infringe upon the church's right to govern itself. It may not come up with legislations that could take away the freedom of religion. This implies that every individual must be given the liberty to follow whatever religion he or she chooses. The founding members of the US Constitution, for example, clearly understood this principle when they wrote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
When a government intrudes into God's realm of spirit and faith, it has crossed the line. When a government denies the freedom of religion, believers must obey God rather than men. To overstep its realm of divinely sanctioned authority is to defy God who alone deserves our highest allegiance. All human government is subject to this Higher Power.
But what about the government extending support to churches and to religion in general? This is certainly acceptable as long as these actions are part of promoting the common welfare of its citizens and they are rendered to all without discrimination. The government's responsibility is to show fairness to all alike; its role is not to judge the faith or non-faith of the people.
Second, the church may not interfere in the affairs of the government. This would mean, for instance, that various church leaders in the Middle Ages were wrong to claim a right to select emperors or to assert their authority over them. The "things" which God has specifically entrusted the government are the promotion of common welfare, maintenance of civil order, keeping the peace, punishment of wrongdoers, protection of the innocent and collection of taxes to administer these assignments. To ensure that these duties are carried out, the government could also issue orders covering an entire population and use force or punishment on any violator. These are the rights God has given to the state.
As a person whose mission was not of this world, Jesus refused to take authority in a realm of civil government that was not assigned to him. For example, he refused to decide a dispute over an inheritance between two brothers. He paid his taxes to the Roman government rather than initiating a political campaign of revolt against it. Even the apostle Paul did not use his apostolic authority to encourage converted slaves to rebel against their earthly masters.
In our present Naga context, no association of churches or religious denomination has the right to impose its faith upon the government or discriminate other non-Christian groups which are part of our civil society. Of course, individual believers and churches can influence the making of government policies by lobbying or fielding their own political candidates; they can write petitions to elected leaders and even express their political views through demonstrations. All these actions may be adopted as members of the society, but not necessarily as members of the church. To drag the name of the church or Christ into something which is purely political or participate in a protest that requires the use of force is biblically wrong.
Does this mean that the church should not take position on issues such as the election of civil leaders, environmental concerns, abortion, child labor, liquor consumption, and so forth? Indeed, the church has the right to take position on any issue. Also, it can come up with rules of restrictions and execute disciplinary actions for behavioral licenses for members of her own community. But as a religious body, it may not assume political authority over the civil society and it may not impose its own laws on non-church members, let alone apply force on them.
In other words, the church and the government have no authority over each other's appointed positions. One is not higher in rank or more sacred in service than the other. Both are God's ordained institutions to serve the people in different ways and in different areas. As for believers, this means that we have two roles: one is to be good representatives of Christ on earth and the other is to serve as responsible citizens of the state.
