An Interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer

On A Proper Relationship between the Church & the State

1. Is it wrong for a local church assembly to take a direct role in government? Biblically, are there any challenges?

Dr. Gregg Frazer answers: "Local church assemblies are not explicitly prohibited to take a direct role in government and, given the form of government in the ancient world, there are no examples in the Bible of a church doing so. Given the nature of the American political system, a church could petition the government on behalf of some cause (e.g. abortion, pornography, etc.) and a church could sue the government for encroaching on its free exercise rights. These steps could be taken on occasion, but should not be the focus or normal procedure of the church. Whether or not a local church should engage in partisan political activity – e.g. campaigning for a particular party or particular candidates – is problematic. It is, I think, a matter of Christian liberty (the Bible doesn’t say), but my own view is that it is inappropriate for the reasons that follow. Governmental activity is not the purpose of the church and the church must be careful not to become so involved in the political realm that it becomes just another interest group vying for power, influence, or favor with the government. The church must transcend partisan politics in order to be a prophetic voice that holds the government – all sides in it – accountable to God’s standards. The church must be a prophetic witness to society, but cannot do that if it is too identified with one party/side. The church must witness to a Christian world view and call everyone to align with it. The church must be the church and not an interest group or political party. The other HUGE danger is the temptation to worldly power that may engulf the church. See the answer to question #3 for more on this. The role of the church and the role of the government are completely different things. The church is in the world to spread the gospel and to live in a manner worthy of the gospel as a living witness to the truth of the gospel. The government is in the world to restrain evil so that people can live together in society. Bottom line: where is your trust? The church must not believe or act as if government is the solution to the world’s (or society’s) problems; the gospel is that solution. The church is part of God’s kingdom; it is not of this world (John 18:36; 17:14) and the church’s conflict is with spiritual powers (Eph. 6:12), not political authorities.

2. Is it okay to overthrow a tyrannical government? For example, was the American Revolution conducted, in principle, in a Christian way? If so, where does support comes from?

It is NOT okay to overthrow a tyrannical government. Scripture could not be clearer: “Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves” (Rom. 13:2). It begins “therefore” because Paul says in the previous verse that because all governing authorities get their authority from God, everyone must be in subjection to governing authorities. Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) wrote this to Romans living under the despotic/tyrannical ruler Nero. Jesus affirmed this in John 19:11 when He affirmed that Pilate had authority over Him “given you from above.” GOD holds rulers accountable, but He nowhere gives that role or authority to us (the people). Some form of the word “rebel” or “revolt” is used in the Bible 142 times – all negatively. The only passage in which “tyrant” is used in the Bible explains that God deals with tyrants (Isa. 49:24-25). Governments are held accountable for their actions – but by God, not by us. David provides the proper example for us when he is being pursued by Saul. He has two opportunities to kill Saul. It is important to note that God had already rejected Saul from being king (I Sam. 16:1) and that David had already been anointed as king in Saul’s place (I Sam. 16:6-7, 12-13). So David knows that he will supplant Saul as king and that he is the rightful king. BUT Saul is still technically the king – the Lord’s anointed. When David has the first opportunity, he says “Far be it from me because of the Lord that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the Lord’s anointed” (I Sam. 24:6). He is more specific in the second instance: “As the Lord lives, surely the Lord will strike him, or his day will come that he dies, or he will go down into battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” (I Sam. 26:10-11). David understands that God will remove Saul at the appropriate time through a means of His choosing. David actually feels guilty for simply cutting a piece of Saul’s robe (I Sam. 24:5) because it suggests lack of respect. David repeatedly refers to Saul as the Lord’s “anointed,” but that term applies to civil rulers – even pagan ones – as well (Isa. 45:1). It isn’t that Saul is anointed because he is a ruler of Israel. All who rule exercise authority from God and are God’s mediators/anointed – it is not for us to remove them (except through established processes) – that is God’s decision and work. Sometimes God uses sinful people to remove rulers, but that does not justify the sin of resisting/overthrowing the ruler. That is God employing the instrumentality of the wicked to accomplish His plan. Men wickedly want to rebel; God uses their wicked desire to fulfill His plan – but their action is still wicked and they will be judged for it. So, the American Revolution was NOT conducted in “a Christian way” – there is no Christian way to rebel. As John Calvin put is: “And even if the punishment of unbridled tyranny is the Lord’s vengeance, we are not to imagine that it is we ourselves who have been called upon to inflict it. All that has been assigned to us is to obey and suffer.” A side note (ultimately irrelevant): even by the world’s standards, it is ridiculous to suggest that the American colonists in the 18th century were “tyrannized.”

3. Is the church still legitimately "the church" when it is corrupted, like the RCC in the Middle Ages?

It is difficult to answer this question without clarification of what you are asking. I will try to answer – you let me know if I missed your point. There are two senses of “the church”: the church universal and local assemblies. “The church” universal refers to all believers in Christ, all who are redeemed and born again. “The church” in the local sense is any given congregation: Grace Community Church; Grace Baptist Church; Placerita Bible Church; etc. The distinction between the two is critically important (primarily) because promises are made to “the church” in the universal sense – but not to individual congregations. In Revelation 2 & 3, John (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) writes to individual congregations (that sense of “the church”). Some of them – particularly Sardis, of which he says that there a “few” believers – are populated largely by nonbelievers/the unsaved and most of them have significant spiritual problems. But he refers to each as “‘the church’ in [a town].” Notice, however, that in each and every case, when promises are made, he refers to “he who overcomes.” That is a term for believers. So, those in those local churches who are believers will receive what is promised to “the church” in the universal sense. Those who are not believers will not. Because you refer to the Roman Catholic Church (more than one congregation) in the Middle Ages, I presume that you are asking about its status as part of the universal church and the promises made to “the church” in that sense. Churches that are “corrupt” (such as the RCC) like Sardis, have a few genuine believers who are part of “the church.” But the normal usage of the phrase “the church” (a body of believers) does not apply to them. They are churches in name only; they “have a name that [they] are [spiritually] alive, and [they] are [spiritually] dead” (Rev. 3:1). God will “make war against them” (Rev. 2:16) and He will “spit [them] out of [His] mouth” (Rev. 3:16). Perhaps you’re asking this question in relation to your first question about church involvement with government. The RCC was, of course, heavily/deeply involved and invested in government power in the Middle Ages. If that’s the question, then it was an example of the earthly/visible/local notion of “the church” that was intertwined with government. It provides a good illustration/example of why the church should not be too active in politics, as the RCC was “corrupted” by temporal power and materialism and concern for this world rather than concern for the gospel and spiritual things and any notion of serving/worshiping God. That is a HUGE danger for the visible church – the allure of earthly power. It is another reason that I think it is unwise for (local/visible) churches to get very involved in politics. Local assemblies of “the church” can become corrupted when too many members of “the church” universal lose sight of their purpose as believers and fall prey to the Satanic temptation to do “what is right in their own eyes” and to seek to “do good” through temporal governmental power rather than through the power of the gospel.

Dr. Greg Frazer (Professor of History & Political Studies at the Master’s University; Dean, John P. Stead School of Humanities) Interview Conducted by Ethan Wood (by means of Email) August 2nd, 2022

Buy Gregg Frazer's Book