In Praise of Hatred

“Hate that which is evil. Cling to that which is good.” Romans 12:9

“A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancor, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate.”

Edmund Burke


Hate gets a bum rap. Here all hate is doing is being the visceral counter-reaction to all that is loved and hate gets hated on. Hate gets maligned with ideas of “hate-crimes,” and “hate-speech,” and “hate-facts.” No one ever faults love when it is invoked for lust and yet hate takes it on the chin by receiving all the bad press and that even when employed properly.

You literature fans… where would you be without hate? How could you have a five star novel without the nobility of hatred in the building conflict? Could Dicken’s, “A Tale of Two Cities” ever have gotten off the ground without building our hatred for Madame De Farge? Would you have ever read Tolkien without Gollum? What would be Beowulf without hatred for Grendel? Even in the Scriptures we keep turning the pages to finally see the Serpent’s head fully crushed.

And what of history? History would be boring if there weren’t people to justly hate. Whether it is Vikud Quisling or Benedict Arnold. Whether it is Judas or Julian the Apostate. Whether it is Pope Francis or Bloody Mary, history wouldn’t be history without a proper hatred for the proper people.

For these reasons alone I think hatred should be toasted. Love gets all the credit but without hated hatred love would just be another ho hum passion losing the ability to be repulsed by what contradicts it.

Consider, for a second, the consequences to our culture because so many have decided that hate is bad. Because we are seeking to ban hate that which fills the vacuum of its absence is tolerance. The consequence of embracing tolerance in place of a full on loving of hate is not that hate disappears but rather is subtly re-directed. We are taught hate is bad and tolerance is good with the result that we now hate ourselves while all the while telling ourselves how loving we are being. We used to properly hate those who were seeking to overthrow our the values of a culture that was, at least in part, Christian. Now, we are convinced that it is horrid to hate the opposite what we used to love. It used to be noble to hate sodomy, hate abortion, hate LGBTQ’ism, hate the stranger and alien whose cultural baggage promised the overthrow of our own beloved cultural values. So, hate hasn’t gone away. It has merely changed zip codes. We used to hate the opposite of that which we loved. Now we merely hate ourselves as we tolerate that which is destroying us. We once hated sodomy but we were taught that particular hate was bad and so we replaced our hate with tolerance with the result that we ended up hating our sons as we created a culture wherein they could more easily embrace sodomy. But… hey, it’s all good because we now have the ability to tolerate our sodomite sons. We once hated abortion but we were taught that particular hate was bad and so we replaced our hate with tolerance with the result that we ended up hating our daughters as we created a culture wherein they could more easily secure that needed abortion. We once hated tattoos but we were taught that particular hate was bad and so we replaced our hate with tolerance with the result that we ended up hating our sons and daughters as we created a culture wherein they could more easily ink themselves up. Again… hatred, being an inescapable concept, hasn’t really gone away, it’s merely relocated itself so that we hate ourselves and our kin.

If the God of the Bible hates (Ps.139:22; 119:63; Prov. 6:16-19) , and if we are supposed to aspire to character of God as seen in Christ then hate should be lauded. We see the hate of our Lord Christ in the way He spoke to His enemies and in His expertise in driving out the Bankers out of the Temple. Hate, glorious hate.

Indeed Scripture presses upon God’s people to properly hate.

Ecclesiastes 3

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Psalm 139

Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord,
and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.

Proverbs 8:13

The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.

And yet we are still told my our clergy corps that Christians ought not to hate instead of being taught that Christians ought not to hate unrighteously and so improperly. In being taught not to hate by our Clergy what we are being taught, by force of inevitability, is the virtue of tolerance, which, as we enumerated above, merely re-locates the address of the inescapable hate so that we become self-haters.

Ironically, in the Church’s “war on hate,” as led by our emasculated clergy, what ends up happening is that Western Christians are having their auto-immune system shutdown so that everything that would have been rejected by the glorious work of auto-immune hate is now slipping through and sickening the Christian faith unto death. Instead of our hate energized auto-immune system spitting out the Aimee Byrds, Greg Johnsons, and Sean Michael Lewis instead without Biblical hate we are infected by their viruses.

No other faith system is doing this to itself. It seems that Western Christians alone have decided that Christians need to love everybody in a multicultural orgy which is promissory of the death of Western Christianity since it can no longer resist the death viruses of a border-less world, New World Order globalism, and the diminution, disappearance or enslavement of the Occidental Christian race which Christ has been pleased, as seen in history, to retain as the carriers of His faith across the world.

Another way this demented war on haters is seen is in the rabid opposition against opposition. The only thing that can be strongly opposed is strong opposition. To strongly oppose is to be “too intense,” or “not morally sensitive,” or even “Fascist.” It is just not good form or socially acceptable to bare one’s teeth at anybody or anything. It is possibly acceptable to be pro-life, pro-borders, pro-marriage, pro-truth in media, pro-just hiring practices but just try being anti-baby killers, anti-immigration, anti-sodomites, anti-lugenpresse, and anti-race quotas. Just see how the invitations to the societal soirees begin to decline. We are so afraid of rabid and reasonable opposition that we will not tolerate plain speaking and insist on circumlocutions in order to avoid being labeled (gasp) “haters.” Of course being “anti-racist,” and “anti-semite” still is considered acceptable hate and will get you a pass into all just the right parties.

Whence comes this war on hate? Let me offer a few guesses,

1.) A few days ago a friend of mine who is one of the sharpest laymen I know wrote me and reported,

Yesterday morning we tuned into the church webcast to learn that it doesn’t really matter what you know (those were his words) because all you need is LUV. He then spent 20 minutes expounding on that theme.”

I have no empirical data but I suspect that this kind of preaching is not that uncommon in Churches (conservative and liberal) across the nation. If all you need is LUV then hating hate is the preeminent virtue for any Christian.

2.) The ubiquitous conviction by dumbed down Americans that “all is well.” Despite the fact that we are living in an epoch that never called more for hatred of the best vintage we remain convinced that “all is well,” and anybody who says to the contrary is to be shunned. Dr. Andrew Joyce says it well,

Merely sharing your feelings of intense dislike, now termed “inciting hatred,” has been deemed criminal conduct in scores of Western countries. Criminal conduct! This despite the fact there has never been a point in our history more deserving of the deepest loathing, the most scathing contempt, and the most vicious hatred.”

Here we are living with effeminate Churches, chaste queer clergy in skinny jeans and sleeve tattoos, mass immigration of strangers and aliens for whom toilets are a novelty, public library Tranny reading hour, the enstupidification of America’s students, and we are being told that it is just so gauche to express the finest hatred, loathing, barbs of detest, rancor, enmity, and bitterness, that one can find within them. If there was a time for Menckenian opprobrium this is it. If ever we should marshal the sarcasm of Ambrose Bierce, this is it. Let us call down the giftedness of skewering as found in Nock, Johnson, and Chesterton. Our great love for the pure makes this properly a “time for hatred.”

3.) Post-modernism disallows us to characterizes anything as objectively bad. Nothing is intrinsically virtuous and so to be loved and nothing is intrinsically vile and so to be hated. We can handle hearing people say, “I love this or that,” because post-mondernism and deconstructionism teaches us that these kinds of value statements are person variable. However to say, “I hate this or I hate that,” we immediately recoil since that has the ring of a universal statement. How care anybody hate anything since nothing is intrinsically hateful.

4.) We hate Christ. Christ had no problem hating that which was hateful but since we hate Christ we refuse to hate what His Word identifies as hateful.

Conclusion

We have need to understand that there is an effect to this cause. When we choke off our ability to hate we, by necessity diminish our ability to love since love and hate are but the same emotion as pointed in opposite directions. We hate that which contradicts what we love and we love that which reverses or suffocates what we hate. If we cannot hate our capacity to love will be stunted and deformed. Indeed so related are love and hate that should you ever meet someone who tells you they don’t have a bone of hatred in their body, you can be sure you are talking too either a sociopath or a psychopath. Run for your life.

Pelosi Tells Us Who The Democratic Voting Base Is

I am pleased… to bring special greetings on behalf of the House Democratic Caucus, which I am proud to say is more than 60 percent women, people of color and LGBTQ Members.

Nancy Pelosi — Speaker of the House
Virtual Commencement Address
Smith College

This is earth shatteringly significant.

Pelosi has just told the careful listener who the base is for the Democratic party. The Base of the Dems are women (minority and white Feminists), “people of color,” (i.e. — Non whites unless the whites are Feminists or sexual perverts) and sexual perverts both black and white.

Or to put it more simply if you are a White person who is not a sexual pervert, and not a feminist Democrats are not contending for your vote.

This in turn explains,

1.) Why the DEMS are so rabidly in favor of open borders and amnesty. Open borders and amnesty swell their base.

2.) Why the DEMS are so rabidly in favor of educational models which will push the pervert agenda. The more perverts which are made in the government schools the larger the DEM voting base is going to be. DEMS need the schools to continue to pervert America’s children.

3.) That, for whatever reason, the minority community, generally speaking, quite against their interests has linked itself to the feminist and pervert constituency to form the base of the Democratic party.

This proves the existence of Cultural Marxism. The base of the Democratic party are those who are Cultural Marxists. The base of the Democratic party are those who are in favor of overturning traditional notions of the good, the true, and the beautiful in favor for a postmodern egalitarianism that affirms that the good and the bad are equally good, that the truth and the lie are equally the truth, and that the beautiful and the ugly are equally beautiful.

So we have two Americas. The America of the Pelosi Democrats is a party that is unified around only one premise and that is that White straight America must be destroyed. Once that premise is vacated the Democratic party is a hopeless melange of special interest groups (Trannies, Sodomites, angry Blacks, angry Hispanics, angry egalitarian Academics, Feminists, etc.) who are each at war with the other over who is the most victimized group in America. Do not be deceived, there is no tranquility in the Democratic party. The party is comprised of all hating each other with only their common hatred of the Christian, straight, white American keeping the party bound together.

If you’re a straight White non feminist, non-pervert person you’d have to have your head examined to vote Democratic.

Romans 13:1f … Then and Now

I intend to misbehave this morning… at least by today’s standards. Over the years I have taken to the habit, when intending to misbehave to stand in the shadows of the Church Fathers who misbehaved before me so that if people are going to condemn and pillory me they must condemn and pillory the misbehaving Fathers as well. If they are going to get angry at me they are going to be required to be angry at the greater Church Fathers of which I am but a theological runt. As such there is going to be a great deal of quoting this morning for the express purpose of communicating that I am not not being novel. I want to express communicate two purposes. First, I intend to demonstrate that I am standing in the longstanding, great and rich tradition of Biblical Christianity. I am not being novel. Second, I intend to demonstrate how far off track our modern clergy has gone askew in their transmogrifying of Romans 13 into some kind of ugly beast. From all our quoting we will turn to the reason the Church Father’s said what they said. We will turn to the Scriptures (Romans 13) from which they drew their convictions and their wisdom.

Allow me to say at the outset that everything that is about to be said this morning is premised on the following statement as drawn from the necessary implication of the 1st commandment.

“THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GOD’S BEFORE ME.”

“No Magistrate, no Husband, no Father, no Employer, no Minister, is owed unconditional obedience by the Man of God. Only God is owed unconditional obedience. Magistrates, as Covenant heads who viciously and continually violate the charters and covenant documents of a Nation, are no longer to be considered Magistrates, but instead are to be considered the Devil’s spawn and so are to be resisted when opportunity arises and the possibility of success is good.”

If we are to have no other God but God before us then this statement must govern how we understand all issues of hierarchy and obedience to that hierarchy including citizens to Magistrates.

Having said that before we start quoting the past Divines let us start by quoting a couple of contemporary wannabees which will inform us why there is a need to revisit Romans 13 and how it is that Romans 13 has been transmogrified.

“To some people, evangelical Christianity was a proper justification for the American Revolution. They believe we had every right to load up our guns and kill Englishmen for the sake of our religious freedom…. The truth is, the United States was born out of a violation of Romans 13:1-7 in the name of Christian freedom.”

John MacArthur


Allow me to just say here that this is a profoundly stupid thing for a Christian minister to say. The rest of the Sermon will demonstrate how errant Johnny Mac is.

“(Romans 13) It means then we are to view then even the most iniquitous tyrants as occupying the place which God has appointed to them. After all, who is the Supreme King and ruler over all the earth? So that means people who are in position of authority are there that institution has been put in place under the sovereign plan of God.”

Allister Begg


Now we quite agree that all that happens happens by God’s appointment. However, that God’s appointment might be to put a Stalin or Mao on the throne does not mean that God’s appointment might not just as well be that a Stalin or a Mao be overthrown by Christians because Stalin or Mao did not rule as God’s Magistrate.

The next time someone throws Romans 13 at you, in this way, as proof that all authorities are God’s authorities and must be unquestioningly obeyed you throw back


Hosea 8:4 “They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew [it] not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. “

We must make the distinction between all things happening happen by God’s sovereign decree and all things that happen that do not have God’s sanction per God’s precept / command. We can say that a Stalin was God’s will in terms of His secret decree of ordination but we can say at the same time that a Stalin was not in keeping with God’s revealed precepts (as Hosea 8:4 articulates). A magistrate who sits as a magistrate who violates God’s ruling order is a magistrate that does not have the cloak of God’s protection as magistrate. After all, it is Lex Rex and not Rex Lex.

These two quotes from Johnny Mac and Begg I think represent much of what we get anymore in the Christian world. We even have a shorthand pejorative for these types. We call them “The Romans 13 crowd.” We use that phrase as a shorthand to describe Christians who, when it comes to Church State relations, believe that when wicked Magistrates puts us under house arrest the Christians’s immediate response is “is it ok to go to the Kitchen?”

But it was not always as Johnny Mac and Allister Begg speak. For centuries Christians … and especially Biblical Christians had a much different understanding of Church State relations as seen in the following quotes.

“He is a king who governs his people justly; if he does otherwise, he shall be king no longer.”

St. Isidore
Church Council — 4th Council of Toledo
633 AD


“… when he who is chosen to defend the good and hold the evil in check himself begins to cherish wickedness … is it not clear that he justly forfeits the dignity conceded to him and the people stand free of his rule and subjection, since it is evident that he was first to violate the compact on account of which he was made ruler? … It is one thing to rule another to act the tyrant in a realm. For as faith and reverence ought to be rendered to emperors and kings for the sake of safeguarding … the realm …if these rulers break out into tyranny, it is no breach of faith or piety that no fealty or reverence is paid to them.

11th century Church Spokesman

… For many (men) would be [19] more than preposterously wise, whilst, under pretext of due submission, they obey the wicked will of kings in opposition to justice and right, being in some cases the ministers of avarice and rapacity, in others of cruelty; yea, to gratify the transitory kings of earth, they take no account of God; and thus, which is worst of all, they designedly oppose pure religion with fire and sword. It only makes their effrontery more detestable, that whilst they knowingly and willingly crucify Christ in his members, they plead the frivolous excuse, that they obey their princes according to the word of God; as if he, in ordaining princes, had resigned his rights to them; and as if every earthly power, which exalts itself against heaven, ought not rather most justly to be made to give way.”

~ John Calvin commentary on Exodus 1:17.
Mid-wives disobeying Pharaoh



…”The Holy Scripture doth teach, that God reigns by His own proper authority, and kings by derivation … That God hath a jurisdiction proper, kings are His delegates. It follows then, that the jurisdiction of God hath no limits, that of kings [is] bounded …kings should acknowledge that, after God, they hold their sovereignty and power from the people… let them remember and know that they are of the same mould and condition as others, raised from the earth by voice and acclimation … it is from God, but by the people’s sake they do reign…There is ever; and in all places, a mutual and reciprocal obligation between the people and the prince … if the Prince fail in his promise, the people are exempt from obedience, the contract is made void, the rights of obligation of no force.

Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos
Published – 1579


When kings or rulers become blasphemers of God, oppressors and murderers of their subjects, they ought no more to be accounted kings or lawful magistrates, but as private men to be examined, accused, condemned and punished by the law of God, and being condemned and punished by the law of God, it is not man’s by God’s doing … When magistrates cease to do their duty, the people are as it were w/o magistrates…If princes do right and keep promise w/ you, then do you owe them all humble obedience. If not, ye are discharged and your study ought to be how ye may dispose & punish according to the law such rebels against God and oppressors of their country.”

Christopher Goodman – 16th Century Reformed English Puritan
How Superior Powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects; and wherein they may lawfully by God’s word be disobeyed and resisted.


A prince is appointed by God to cherish his subjects, even as a shepherd to guard his sheep. When, therefore, the prince does not fulfill his duty as protector, when he oppresses his subjects, destroys their ancient liberties and treats them as slaves, he is to be considered not a prince, but a tyrant. As such, the estates of the land may lawfully and reasonably depose him, and elect another in his room.”Dutch Act of Abjuration – 1581 “… The origin of every monarchy, lay in election. The people, give their consent to the king’s authority only with the clear understanding that there are certain reciprocal conditions, which neither king nor people can violate with impunity … a monarch who pretends to rule by any other title might be forced to relinquish his throne whenever there is sufficient force to compel his abdication.”

Sir Edwin Sandys – 17th Century Puritan
Speech given in the English House of Commons – 1614


In 1643, Pastor Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex, Rex, or the Law and the Prince in which he commented on Romans 13:3-4:

The ruler, as the ruler, and the nature and intrinsical end of the office is, that he bear God’s sword as an avenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil, and so cannot be resisted without sin. But the man who is the ruler, and commandeth things unlawful, and killeth the innocent, carrieth the … sword to execute, not the righteous judgment of the Lord upon the ill-doer, but his own private revenge upon him that doth well; therefore, the man may be resisted….6

6. Samuel Rutherford, 
Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (Originally printed in London for John Field, October 7, 1644) (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1982) p. 145.

“The clearest majority may only exercise that power within the limits prescribed for it by the constitution, and when it exceeds these limits, the will of the majority is no more the righteous rule for the citizen than the howling wind.”


Robert L. Dabney
Discussions Secular – pg. 308


“A ruler in the possession of power, but misusing it by woefully harming the common good, is not a ‘helpmate of God’ (leitourgos theou) and has no claim to obedience. It can even be argued that power, well established and entrenched, claiming to authority and to obedience. It can even be argued that power, well established and entrenched, claiming authority but methodically destroying the values of the common good, is diabolic in character. The satanic aspects of such government, combining power (a divine attribute) with wickedness and irrationality are usually underscored by a quality of confusion; it rarely opposes the common good on all scores and in every respect, though its positive actions are often means to nefarious ends: for example, even maternity wards, recreational institutions and places of learning established by the state can be designed to build up armies intended for aggressive warfare.”

Liberty or Equality — pg. 169
Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn


“For when any institution of human character or composition trespasses or exceeds the limits of God-given authority, then we are not under obligation to obey. (The violation of a law humanly imposed, and not the legitimate exercise of God-given authority, does not involve sin.) Nothing is sin except that which involves the violation of a divine obligation. There is only one Lawgiver. If the ordinances of men require us to violate the law of God, then we must obey God rather than men, and must violate the human ordinance. If human ordinances do not require us to sin but are in excess of divinely authorized prerogative, then compliance is to be determined by expediency in relation to all the circumstances of the situation.”

Dr. John Murray
– “The Nature of Sin,” Collected Writings of John Murray. Vol. #2.
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977, p. 79


[ Scott ] So we have to really and truly start acting like free people. We have to say the minute some official gets out of line we have to punish him.

[ Blumenfeld ] Yes.

[ Scott ] And they are all cowards.

[ Scott ] Well, the whole system is out of line, but we have to start someplace.

[ Blumenfeld ] I know. I would agree with you.

[ Scott ] Lectures will not do it. Physical actions sooner or later has to come into the picture.

029 – From the Easy Chair – Audio – RR161CY188.mp3
From the Easy Chair
Many Consequences of Educational Anomalies


What I have given here is just a Whitman’s sampler… a pu pu platter … just a taste of what could be reproduced from the Church Fathers. From the earliest times forward the Church has not believed that the Magistrate cannot be second guessed. Christians … and especially Reformed Christians have not embraced the whole ancient thesis of the divine rights of Kings, much to the chagrin of tyrannical Kings.

Now, we have to ask why all these men and hosts more like them,

“So foolishly fond are men to put themselves in the place of God, and usurp a jurisdiction over men’s consciences: and to presume that laws made against the interest and command of God, must be of more force than the laws of God’s enacting.”

Stephen Charnock


held convictions that are so contrary to today’s Romans 13 crowd who teach that Romans 13 gives license for the Magistrate to shear the sheep and that the sheep’s response should be to just shut up and enjoy the shearing.

This is a monumental issue. If one is familiar with the 20th century one is aware how often the 20th century has been characterized by wickedness in high places. Indeed, more judicially innocent blood has been spilled by the Governments of the 20th century than all the blood spilled prior to the 20th century by Governments. So, as this is characteristic of Government we better be well aware of what God’s Word has to say regarding such maniacal institutions.

And so we turn to Romans 13… the very passage that so many have appealed to sit down and shut up we appeal to in order to learn the very opposite principle. We turn here to learn how God speaks about Magistrates and our response to wicked magistrates.

Romans 13:1-4 – Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Here St. Paul inspired by the Spirit has a word to say to the Christians in Romans regarding Magistrates. Here we must say we cannot understand vs. 1-2 without considering 3-4 at the same time.

First he calls for subjection to governing authorities and says that the governing authorities he is speaking of a appointed by God. The fact that these governing authorities are appointed by God is our first clue that the Holy Spirit is speaking about a specific kind of authority. They are authorities appointed by God. In vs. 4 these governing authorities are described as “God’s ministers.” The word for “ministers” is the same word used for “Deacons” in the Church. These governing authorities are God’s servants. This kind of specification tells us that the governing authorities that are being spoken of here are a very precise kind of men. What is not being referred to are governing authorities who are in rebellion to God. The governing authorities being referenced here are those doing God’s work in keeping with God’s standards. These are the kind of governing authorities we are not to resist. How do we know this? The text tells us.

The governing authorities we are to submit to are governing authorities who are a terror to evil workers and not a terror to good workers.

And I think I could make a case that there is an implication in the text that as we are not to resist the kind of authority that is God’s minister who are properly a terror to evil workers and not a terror to the workers of good, we are to resist the kind of authority that is not God’s minister who are improperly a terror to the workers of good and not a terror to the workers of evil.

The Magistrate who is a terror to the worker of good should be the one who should be afraid.

Should we follow the idea that the presumption in the text, as explicated in vs. 3-4 that the governing authorities that are to be submitted to are governing authorities that are not ruling in such a way as to force the Christian to violate the Christians higher allegiance to Christ then we must conclude that it is those kind of governing authorities alone to which we owe our obedience. It is those authorities we are not to resist and if we were to resist them we would be violating the ordinance of God.

So, we find that Romans 13 does not allow Christians to check their moral compass at the door of the local magistrate. Romans 13 will not allow us to say “We were just following orders,” or “we were just obeying the law.”

Of course, this is not to deny that God places wicked governing authorities in their place. Such placing by God of such wicked governing authorities may very well be God’s appointed punishment for a people’s sin (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). However, such God placed authorities may themselves find themselves removed for other God appointed authorities by God’s people as they follow the Interposition of lesser magistrates that God raises up in blessing to His people.

MacArthur vs. McAtee II

C. S. Lewis reminded Christians that human beings live forever while the state is only temporal and thus is reserved to comparative insignificance (Mere Christianity [N.Y.: MacMillan, 1977], pp. 78-79). To spend your time altering the state when you could be offering people eternal salvation is a bad bargain. To abandon the message that gives life to the eternal soul in favor of temporal change prostitutes the purpose of a believer’s life. That would be like a heart surgeon abandoning his life-saving practice to become a make-up artist. The church needs to use all its power and resources to bring men and women to Jesus Christ. That’s what God has called us to do.

John MacArthur
The Christian’s Responsibility to Government I
Romans 13:1-7


1.) MacArthur following Lewis’ mistake forgets that “the state” is composed of human beings who live forever. This, thus, is a irrational distinction.

2.) What is someone spends their time altering the state by commanding the people who run the state to repent of their sins — public and private — and trust Christ? Why wouldn’t that be a good bargain? Did John The Baptist make a bad bargain by commanding Herod to repent of taking his brother’s wife?

3.) Because MacArthur truncates the Christian message dividing it against itself he sees the proclamation of the message that effects eternal life as being in competition with the proclamation of the message that incarnates eternal life into temporal institutions precisely because those who have been given eternal life also are those who may well run the temporal institutions.

4.) The Church needs to be the armory of God so once men and women, through its offices, are brought to Jesus Christ the Church is then equipped to train men and women in Kingdom work. That’s what God called us to do.


MacArthur & McAtee I

“Other than instructing us to be model citizens, Scripture says nothing at all about Christians engaging in politics. It says nothing about Christians engaging in civil change. Those things are not our priority. But that doesn’t mean we’re not to be involved as citizens. For example, in the Old Testament Israel was a priestly nation. It was God’s design for Israel to bring men to Him. And it was the primary function of the priests to do just that. There were other people to take care of menial problems and social issues. But the heart of the nation was the priesthood. The priests could not abandon their role of bringing men and women to God. That was God’s design, and it is the same for the church. I believe we are a kingdom of priests, not a kingdom of politicians. Our purpose in the world is to bring men to God. You say, “Don’t you care about change?” Of course I do, but I also know that change comes from the inside, not the outside. We must administrate the things of the Kingdom of God.”

John MacArthur
The Christian & Government
Romans 13

1.) Other than instructing us that Marriage is a noble estate Scripture says nothing at all about how to get a woman pregnant. Does that mean that sex in marriage is not a priority?

2.) Israel was not only a Priestly nation but it was a Kingly nation as well. It was God’s design that Israel would be a light to the Nations exhibiting the glory of God’s law.

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
    to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
    so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
    the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Micah 4:2)


Therefore we can conclude it was God’s design that the Nations might learn God’s laws from Israel, the Kingly nation. Even so, today the Church has the role of announcing God’s Kingdom to redeemed Nations that they might walk in God’s ways.

3.) MacArthur divorces Christ’s Kingship from His High Priestly role and therefore divorces the the role of God’s people as kings under sovereign God from their roles as priests under sovereign God. The effect of this is that this move makes the Church a place that heralds salvation but then has no word to say on what salvation looks like in the public square. MacArthur offers a truncated Christianity.

4.) The Church is indeed comprised of a Kingdom of Priests, just as it is comprised of a Kingdom of Kings and a Kingdom of Prophets. We, as the Church, are prophets, priests, and kings under sovereign God. MacArthur offers a truncated Christianity.

5.) Our (The Church’s) purpose in the World is indeed to bring men to God so that they in turn may be those who take godly dominion (Kingship) under their Liege-Lord and great High Priest, Jesus Christ and so expand the already present expansive Kingdom.

6.) Change does indeed come from the inside and then looks like something on the outside. Getting people saved without instructing them in building up the Kingdom in their families, cultures, politics, jurisprudence, education, etc. is like birthing a child without then feeding them. MacArthur offers a truncated Christianity.

7.) It is precisely because we must administrate the things of the Kingdom of God that we preach a whole Christ — Prophet, Priest, and King. MacArthur has condensed the meaning of the Kingdom to be exactly synonymous with the Church. That is a fatal move. The Church is indeed the fire that warms the whole of the Kingdom but it is not alone the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God covers every domain, jurisdiction and area of life. MacArthur is seeking to redeem men without redeeming the things that men put their hands upon. MacArthur offers a truncated Christianity.