Showing Respect to Authority

Thank you again, Mr. Shoemaker. Thank the other Mr. Shoemaker for leaving me two glasses of water. I'm not doing too bad, actually. It's funny, I had a... I think about a week and a half ago, I had a little case of sniffles that was gone in a couple days, and then about four days after that, Connor came down with a cold, which I felt guilty because I thought it was nothing for me, but really all he had was all in his sinuses. And you know how that can be. But he recovered pretty much. We had one night of bad coughing, which meant Sue was up half the night. Anyways, that has nothing to do with my sermon. I'm just thankful for the water. But you might have noticed there's an election coming up soon. As a matter of fact, it's almost impossible not to notice, especially if you're in one of those battleground states which we happen to be in. I was going to say we're bombarded with rhetoric. Rhetoric is a pretty fancy term. Let's just say there's a lot of commercials. And the message is that you either proclaim how great one candidate is, or they tell you just about how horrible the other one is. We tend to call it mud-slinging. Mud-slinging seems to get worse and worse. As a matter of fact, does it seem like it's the worst it's ever been? Maybe.

But I might surprise you if I read some quotes about some previous political leaders in America, from some actual campaigns or people commenting on their work. This one was written by a previous president about James A. Garfield while he was president. So this is going back a little ways, but this is my area of expertise. Actually, Ulysses Grant wrote this of President Garfield.

He said, I don't know much about angleworms, but I'm guessing they're kind of wishy-washy. We've been hearing a lot about the Senate race of Kentucky. A former Kentucky senator by the name of Henry Clay wrote about President Jackson that, That's pretty strong language. At least he didn't beat around the bush. Abraham Lincoln is considered to be one of the best presidents out of our history, and there's sometimes an argument between he and George Washington. But did you realize that he was also one of the most widely hated and publicly insulted?

I've got a little bit of some of what was written about him. Actually, let me cite Harper's Weekly. It used to be a monthly magazine, one of the early mass circulation magazines. Millions of copies all across the country. It printed an article that called him a filthy storyteller, a despot, a liar, thief, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster. Instead of calling him honest Abe, they called him ignoramus Abe, old scoundrel, perjurer, robber, swindler, tyrant, field butcher, and land pirate. I don't know what a land pirate is, but I'm guessing that wasn't meant to be a compliment. And that was a national magazine. The newspapers in the South routinely called Lincoln a baboon, and used other terms that were usually reserved for African American slaves. And it used these terms so often it's not worth me bothering to quote any particular article. Instead, I'm going to read a little bit from a newspaper that was printed in Lincoln's hometown of Salem, Illinois. So this wasn't a Southern paper, if you'll bear with me. As I said, this is to make my point about how mud-slinging has been around a while.

This says, This speech has demonstrated the fact that, although originally a Herculean and a rail splitter, and more lately a whimsical storyteller and side splitter, he is no more capable of becoming a statesman, may even a moderate one, than a braiding ass can become a noble lion.

People now marvel how it came to pass that Mr. Lincoln should have been elected as a representative man of any party. His weak, wishy-washy, namby-pamby efforts, embezzle in matter, disgusting in manner, have made us the laughingstock of the whole world. The European powers will despise us because we have no better material out of which to make a president. The truth is, Lincoln is only a moderate lawyer, and in the larger cities of the Union would pass for no more than a facetious pedafogger.

Take him from his vocation, and he loses even these small characteristics, and indulges in simple twaddle, which would disgrace a well-bred schoolboy.

So, I'm not sure if anybody's written that about Allison Grimes or Mitch McConnell, but some pretty strong stuff. If we go back to that other illustrious president I mentioned, the father of our country even experienced abuse in the press.

As a matter of fact, George Washington took these things seriously. He was the first one in the job that he held. And he was so hurt by newspaper editorials and insults that it took his advisors and friends tremendous effort to convince them to run. Well, they didn't run for election back then, but to be willing to be elected for a second term. One of the worst and most stinging of the criticisms was written by the famous writer Thomas Paine.

Thomas Paine wrote the crisis letters, talking of the Sunshine Patriot. He's the one that wrote the words, These are the times that try men's souls. Lofty rhetoric then, but he had some less kind things to say about Washington. He said this in an open editorial. And you, sir, treacherous in private friendship and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an imposter. Whether you have abandoned good principles or whether you ever had any. Considering that most of the presidents I've just mentioned are today admired almost universally as some of our greatest leaders, it must be obvious that the mud-slinging criticism and the harsh insults have not necessarily been tied to truth, not tied to whether or not a person deserves such insults or whether they deserve respect.

Now, aside from the history lesson, is there another lesson in this for us? Well, I think there is. For us as Christians, and the one that I want to focus on is that the way we talk about leaders in government position also should not depend on whether or not that person is competent, not really on how much they earn our respect.

Now, that probably sounds contrary to our upbringing as Americans. And to some degree it is. So, I'm saying that I think Scripture will tell us that we have to act a little differently than our American tradition might encourage us to do. But it's good for us to remember that we're citizens of the Kingdom of God first and American citizens second. Although I want to add and make sure I make this disclaimer, we should be proud Americans, and I certainly am. It's not only alright, it's good for us to love our country and support it.

The Bible gives us some clear instruction regarding showing respect for government authority. And these instructions aren't based on an individual person's merit or character. They're based on an understanding of God's control of world events. Let's go directly to the heart of the matter, and the Apostle Paul's writing in Romans chapter 13. I think this is the key passage that deals with this, and I considered working my way up to it, but I thought, no, let's hit it right off the bat so that there's...

I don't have to worry about making clear what our responsibility is. It begins in Romans 13. We'll start at the beginning of the chapter. The Apostle writes, I've heard some people confused about this passage, because where it says, God is evil, and he is not evil. He is evil, and he is evil. He is evil, and he is evil. He is evil, and he is evil. He is evil, and he is evil. I've heard some people confused about this passage, because where it says, God's minister, it's not referring to a minister like serving in the church.

It means God's servant. One of the ways we know this is not referring to church officials, is the fact that ministers in the church don't bear the sword. We don't punish people or use force in that way. This is talking about government officials who do use the sword or force. He goes on to say, Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also because you might be punished by them, but also for conscious sake.

For because of this, you also pay taxes, for their God's ministers or servants attend continually to this very thing. Remember therefore, or render therefore, to all their due. Taxes to whom taxes are due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, and honor to whom honor. Now, we need to have some important concepts of this instruction, but it's obvious that Paul, this is the same Paul who wrote to say that we're ambassadors and that our citizenship is in heaven. So even though we might say we've got a loyalty and accountability to a different government, he tells us to be subject to the government authority that's right here around us.

And he doesn't differentiate. In his time, it was the Roman Empire, and they had sub-kingdoms or chit-ro-archies and other, I'm trying to think of what they called their provinces, but there was no overall authority. And he says to be subject specifically to men who are put in position because he says they're in the position because either God caused it or allowed it.

We must remember, even bad rulers are in place because God allows that and sometimes causes it to happen. We can see an explanation of that somewhat in Daniel chapter 4. Daniel 4, we read verse 17. But I'll set the stage to remind you that Daniel actually served as a government official in two different empires. And this passage he's explaining to King Nebuchadnezzar, who was one of the most powerful men that ever lived, that he was foretelling, he was interpreting a dream that God had given Nebuchadnezzar to explain that Nebuchadnezzar needed to either change his ways or God was going to humble him forcibly.

We might address that later, but I want to see part of this explanation in Daniel 4, verse 17. He says, this decision is by the Creator of the Watchers and the sentence by the Word of the Holy Ones in order that the living may know, so the last part of this is what I wanted to focus on, that the living may know that the most high rules in the kingdom of men.

So God is in charge of what happens in the kingdom of men and gives it to whomever he will and sets over it the lowest of men. Now, you might wonder, why in the world would God put one of the lowest of men in charge? It would be confusing if we didn't have the understanding that God is not trying to save the world right now. We've heard that many years in the Church that when God sets his hand to save the world, he'll do so.

But right now, he's giving mankind leeway to try different things, but God has a purpose he wants to work out. He's not trying to bring everyone to conversion, but he is accomplishing things to happen. We can see another example of that if we just think about the Egyptian ruler who was ruling over Egypt and the Hebrew people who were there at the time that God started working with Moses.

That Pharaoh was not in office because he was the most fit or competent to rule that nation. As a matter of fact, if you look at what happened under the rule, you could see it was almost the exact opposite. I'm not going to read through all of Exodus, but if you turn to Romans 9, we'll see Paul comment on that. Romans 9 and verse 15, I thought this was a faster way to explain this.

And of course, it shows the fact that God intended for that particular man to be Pharaoh at the time he would bring the children of Israel out of Egypt.

So, the apostle Paul is going to quote from the Old Testament. He says in Romans 9 and 15, For he says to Moses, I'll have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I'll have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.

So, God chooses who he will spare from harm and who he won't. He says, So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but God who chose mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, to the Pharaoh, For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show my power in you, that my name may be declared in all the earth.

This is saying God caused Pharaoh to be in the position he was. Probably, God understood his mindset and the fact that he wouldn't do what was the best for his country. He should have left Israel to leave the country much sooner. But he was one who was part of heart and would let his country suffer because he wouldn't bow down and do what needed to be done.

And we should realize that sometimes God is doing similar things with different leaders right now. And he doesn't always reveal to us exactly how or why. But even when our only country seems to be going downhill and governed by leaders that we might perceive as either incompetent or corrupt. And I think we can find plenty of examples of both. Matter of fact, it's hard to see that evidence now, but as a historian I've studied, you know, we've had plenty of past political leaders who have needed to find their dishonesty and corruption. But even when that happens, we must remember that God is fully aware of it. He's in control. No one slips into office without him knowing it. And in fact, no one could win an election without him allowing that.

And I thought I'd point out there are a couple of reasons I thought it good to address this subject. And this one I think I've heard in my time in the Church, it just comes up on a regular basis. But there's an obvious fact that if we're paying attention, we see our nation does seem to be declining. And sometimes it looks like it's declining dramatically. And a lot of that can be attributed to failures in leadership by those who are in office.

But it's also important to realize that we in the Church have become more free in criticizing and judging those in office. We used to be much more circumspect. And there, I want to balance this by saying, of course it's important for us to be careful how we speak about people in office. But I also want to say we should never blind ourselves or try to say things that are untrue. We don't want to pump someone up. But we should do truthful analysis. We can speak of things we see, but with respect. It's been interesting to me studying history how much what we do in the Church is enhanced and affected by the culture around us. Several decades back, the culture out in the United States affected the Church in a different way.

Historians studied the American culture after World War II. I still have trouble saying that out loud. After World War II, most people in the country tended to focus on getting along, conformity and obedience to authority. That was standard not only in the Church, but outside of the Church. And it was largely because of that desire to pull together first during the Depression and then during the Second World War. We had to work together. We had to respect authority. And of course, a large number of men in the country served in the military and had to learn to obey orders and to respect authority. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. That attitude was present in the Church, not only after World War II, but for some considerable time after. I find it interesting as younger people look and hear stories about what happened in the Church during the 50s and 60s. They say, oh, they were so authoritarian, they told everybody what to do. And I think we tend to look, and that did happen. I'm not saying it didn't. But we forget to look outside the Church and say, oh, they did that in corporations, they did it in other churches, they did it in civic clubs. That was the nature or the culture of the United States at the time that people in authority told others what to do. I think it persisted longer in the Church than it did outside.

Partly because our training and our focus on obedience led us to do that. But in recent years, our attitude toward leadership in the Church has had an opposite effect. We've gone through some pretty dramatic changes in the Church. Specifically, what happened...well, I still talk of it as though we're recent, but what happened 20 years ago, not all that recent, really changed how we looked at authority figures in the Church.

Because for those who were around, we had leaders in the Church start teaching the exact opposite of what we always had been taught. And so it made us suspicious. We've got to check up on everything. We can't just trust anyone. And that's good. But at the same time that we became more open about analyzing what the minister would say and analyzing what came out of what was in our headquarters, we became more free in analyzing what our government leaders were doing as well.

Now, of course, I want to point out that that's not necessarily bad. I want to say it's never wrong for us to think for ourselves. We should think and prove all things, which the Bible says. And we should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of leaders in the Church as well as outside. And of course, I'm one of those. I was put into a position of leadership somewhat unexpectedly, and I know I've got weaknesses, and people are aware of them, and I'm glad when people help me with those.

But when we look at government leaders or people of authority, that doesn't change what the Bible says about showing respect. Let's read some of what it does say about that. If you'll turn with me to Ecclesiastes chapter 10, and by the way, now it's funny, I was looking at a note that I'd written in pen that I couldn't make out because I left my reading glasses in the car.

But I did write a reminder to myself that I'm not giving this message by meat as an intention of any personal correction to anybody here or in any of the other congregations. So I'm not speaking on this because I've been pursuing a problem. I'm speaking on it because it's something that comes up on a regular basis, and I think of it as meat and deucease, and as I said, with all the mudslinging that goes on in political campaigns. As a matter of fact, actually, I think we have more good examples in our congregations, partly because of, you know, we've got well-experienced and mature members of the Church who set an example of doing what we're going to read about. So with all that, let me get back to Ecclesiastes 10 and verse 20. Solomon, the wisest man on the planet, wrote this. He said, He said, Here, I wonder if that was a bit of humor because we know birds don't talk. But this was, Solomon's way, partly of saying, Look, things you say will get around, and the people we are talking about might learn of it. And we've been discussing, you know, it's become so common in our society for people to speak very disrespectfully about government leaders, it doesn't seem unusual to us. That seems more like the natural way, even though we can see scriptures in the Bible that tell us to act differently. And of course, I would say Solomon's emphasizing the fact that you might get caught and suffer. But from what we read at the Apostle Paul, we need to remember the higher reason that God allows people to be in authority.

And I'll give my personal, well, just my thoughts. To be honest, I'm not a real fan of the current holder of the office, the president of the country, and I haven't made any big secret of that. You know, I don't approve of most of the people in his party. You know, partly because I have suspicions about their goals and motives. But, as I said, I need to remember what we read in Daniel 4, that God is in charge. Sometimes he puts the lowest of men in positions. None of us want to sound like the writers that I quoted in my introduction, who were just very open about saying nasty things about political leaders. And we also don't want to be like those that we can read of in the book of Jude. Let's go back to Jude. Mr. Shoemaker said we could say chapter one, or we could say the last chapter. Either way, it's the last book before you get to Revelation.

I was joking. It's funny. When I go to teach at an ambassador, I often bring my old college Bible because I've got notes in it. But it's falling apart very badly. And I said, oh, like that? That wasn't supposed to happen. They were out. But a read Jude beginning in verse eight says, likewise, also, these filthy dreamers. Now, I'm not going to go back, but verse four, he says, filthy dreamers is referring to men that he says have crept into the church unawares. So they came in, but they weren't really of us.

And he says that, likewise, they reject authority. They speak evil of dignitaries. Okay, so that's something he's saying we shouldn't be doing. But then he cites the example of Michael the Archangel. In verse nine, he says, Michael the Archangel, in contending with the devil, and who could be worse than him when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation.

But he said, the Lord rebuke him. So this goes to show, talk about respect for those in authority. You know, Satan the devil is in a position of authority. He's not a respectable being. I was going to say person. I don't know if we'd say person.

We know the evil that he's done. But in a personal confrontation, Michael didn't say, you dirty so-and-so, you're wicked. He basically called on God's authority to rebuke him. And of course, that doesn't mean that those in authority who do wrong won't face any consequences. They will. If God allowed or even put certain people into office, then God will hold them accountable. And if I were put in a position of authority, and I thought, I'm going to be held accountable to God himself, that's a sobering thought. I wish all of our politicians would think of that now and then. King David set us a very good example in how he dealt with his predecessor in office, King Saul.

So let's turn to 1 Samuel chapter 26. 1 Samuel 26. This is actually a very well-known story, but I like David's story, so I enjoy going and reading from his life as often as possible. 1 Samuel 26 will begin in verse 9. Now, as a matter of fact, I should set the stage before I begin reading. Of course, this is when David had already been anointed king by the prophet Samuel. And a lot of people knew he was going to be king, and Saul became suspicious and afraid and determined he would kill David.

So David was on the run hiding from an unjust monarch who wanted to take his life when he didn't deserve it. So David was hiding from him. But one day he discovered Saul's army was out on a campaign, and he snuck up there with one of his men, and they saw that they were all sound asleep. Now, the Scripture tells us that God had caused this deep sleep to fall on them.

Perhaps as a test, David, I'm not sure. But of course, he's there, and... Well, I'm going to back up to verse 8, because at his abishai, one of his top soldiers didn't share David's thought, because abishai said to David in verse 8, God has delivered your enemy into your hand. Now therefore, let me strike him once with a spear right to the earth. I wouldn't have to strike the second time. So abishai is saying, I'll make it quick and clean. And David said to abishai, don't destroy him.

Who can stretch out his hand against the lords and winted and be guiltless? So I'm saying, look, he's responsible to God. So David said, furthermore, as the eternal lives, the eternal shall strike him. Or as David shall come to die, he'll just roll out and die, or he'll go out to battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the eternals and winted.

David did plan to play a little joke on him. He said, please take the spear and the jug of water that are by his head and let us go. And I'm not going to read on, but we know later he got to a safe distance and called and woke him up, and spoke to him, and finally said, hey, whose is this jug of water and this spear pointing out that he had it within his power to have done, saw harm, but chose not to? That's important for us because David was talking about striking physically.

We had to have a certain proximity and physical ability to do that, but almost everybody on the planet has an ability to strike out with his tongue. We all can say hurtful things. But if David was saying, who can do that and not be guilty, the fame should go for us. And anytime we're thinking about using a whiplash of our tongue, we should think, well, should I do that, or should I leave it in God's hands?

And again, that's not to say that we should never explain our views, but there's a difference between judging someone's policy or their actions and judging the person.

Let's turn back to Daniel, Daniel 4 again, to notice some of this. Daniel did a good job of showing how to respect someone in authority, even if he didn't necessarily know what that person wanted him to do. Daniel 4, we'll begin in verse 24. This is back in that same story, of course, where Nebuchadnezzar had been given a dream that, in essence, he saw the great tree, and he saw the tree cut off and a band put around it, and he was kind of shocked by this. And even more shocked when Daniel explained that in the dream, the tree represented him, Nebuchadnezzar. And basically said, if you don't change your ways, you're going to be cut down, not being killed, but you're going to be driven from office, have your reason taken from you, they'll put you out with the beast. And he gives him a bit of advice. He could have said, and you're going to get what you deserve, but he doesn't. In verse 24, he says, So you're going to have to know that. So Daniel was telling this great king and emperor to whom he was responsible what was going to happen, but he was still very respectable. Let's drop down to verse 27.

He didn't say, now you better straighten out, you dirty so-and-so. I know what you've been doing. No, he doesn't. He calls him king and says, you know, reach long when you read it again. Break off your sins by being righteous. In other words, maybe make an improvement in how you're dealing with people, and maybe you'll benefit from it.

We'll stay in the book of Daniel if you turn over to chapter 6. We can see another example. It wasn't until I thought about what he had been through and how I might have felt if I were in that situation to think about the respect Daniel shows to a different emperor. This is after the fall of the Babylonian empire, which God used Daniel to predict or to foretell.

But the new emperor realized Daniel's talent and ability and incorporated him into his government. But as it turned out, some others in that government didn't like Daniel. And the story goes, they schemed to set a trap for him, basically convinced the emperor to sign a decree, making it illegal to pray to any god or person other than the emperor. Well, Daniel wasn't going to give up praying to God, and so he was caught red-handed, so to speak.

And the law said that he had to be thrown into the lions again. Well, the king had signed the law himself. He couldn't break it, so that happened. But he was concerned, as we pick up in verse 19. Before that, it says the king didn't sleep well. He was up all night. It says, Then the king rose very early in the morning, and went in haste to the den of the lions.

When he came to the den, he cried out with a lamenting voice to Daniel. And the king said, Daniel, Daniel, the servant of the living God, has your God, who you serve, continually been able to deliver you from the lion? And then what did Daniel say? The first words out of his mouth were, O king, live forever! That struck me somewhat as funny, but it turns out it was a common phrase at the time.

O live forever! Daniel didn't expect that the king would live forever, but it's sort of like in Great Britain they say, God saved the queen. That's a common thing. I'm trying to think what we say, you know, and then, well, we've got a song called, Hail to the Chief, for our president. There's a certain phrase, but Daniel didn't hesitate to use that customary greeting, even though this was a king who just allowed him to literally be thrown to the lions.

And Daniel wasn't hurt. It occurred to me, if you've been thrown to the lions, and been saved directly by God, are you worried about what that king is going to do to you next? Daniel was in a position where he could have said, you know, something that I wouldn't say in a sermon, but he could have used a number of colorful phrases, you know, just to blow him off and say, I don't have to worry about you.

You can't hurt me. But he still showed the proper respect and used proper etiquette. He wasn't even just casual. He didn't say, yeah, dude, I'm okay. As I said, the proper O King lived forever. God has sent an angel and closed the mouth of the lions so that I'm not hurt. I'm going to look at another example or two. The apostle Paul moved in many circles. He dealt, and in fact, he's the one that said, I'm all things to all men.

He knew how to treat people in different situations. We'll turn to Acts, Chapter 24. I want to know a couple of times during Paul's legal problems. That's a subtle way. Basically, he was put on trial for preaching the truth. People didn't like the message that he taught and wanted to get him. But let's see how he behaved in court. Actually, when he was on trial, he followed the proper etiquette.

I'll see how one of his accusers speaks first to show that Paul was following that type of custom. Acts 24, verse 1, it says, We accept it always, and in all places most noble Felix with all thankfulness. Boy, that's kind of fancy, lofty speak. Paul didn't say, well, I'm a Christian, so I don't have to talk that way. We lock down to verse 10. Paul didn't get a chance to speak, and Paul, after the governor nodded him to speak, answered, and said, these are kind of niceties that might sound odd to us.

And we could say Felix, the governor to whom he was speaking, didn't deserve them. He as a person didn't deserve that respect. Later on in the chapter, you'll see that he was trying to get Paul to give him a bribe. So he wasn't an honorable person. But Paul was showing respect to the office that he held, in spite of the person holding it. And we can learn, actually, if you go back a chapter in chapter 23, we'll see the fact that Paul did distinguish between a person and that person's actions, and the office that that person held.

And so, Paul told us that we need to do this, and he set the example himself. You know, he practiced what he preached. This is earlier before he goes to, before the Roman authorities, he's put on trial by Jewish authorities. So, chapter 23, verse 1, Paul, looking earnestly at the counsel, said, Men and brethren, I've lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.

And Paul said to him, Will God will strike you, you whitewashed wall? Do you sit to judge me according to the law, and you command me to be struck contrary to the law? Paul was angry, and he probably shouted it with more heat and noise than I did. But there's something he didn't know. Those who stood by said, Do you revile God's high priest? Paul backed it up after they said, I didn't know, brethren, that he was the high priest. He would have spoke that way to the high priest, and he quotes the Old Testament, he says, For it is written, You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.

He was properly quoting Exodus 22, verse 28. He knew that Ananias did not personally deserve respect. Paul knew that he'd just broken the law. Ananias had done something that was wrong. And when he thought he was just a common person, Paul felt free to correct him. When he learned that he was holding that high office, he realized that he had to show respect to the office and speak differently. It's interesting, the law doesn't say that you have to like the ruler.

It never says you have to flatter him or say nice things about him. It just says, Don't speak ill. And as I said, that goes against our democratic tradition in America. We don't believe in getting anyone special treatment. Treating them different no matter what kind of job they hold. As a matter of fact, looking back to history, that's one of the interesting stories. As I mentioned, President Washington, he was the first man elected to that office after the new Constitution was formed. And back then, riding horseback, it took him several weeks to get from his home in Virginia up to New York, where the government first met.

Since the Senate got together before then, many of their first debates were spent, it sounds silly now, but discussing, What do we call this guy? What title can we give to the person that holds that office? Some of them suggested that they call him His Excellency. Someone even suggested calling him His Mightiness, or the High Protector of Liberty. Not many of them, the office of President. A lot of people thought George Washington as a person deserved that type of honor.

James Madison was in the House of Representatives, though, and had been crucial to riding the Constitution. And he said, basically in a sense, Wait a minute, the Constitution already gives him a title, that of President of the United States. That ought to be enough.

And when Washington got into town, it was his idea that what they should call the President is simply Mr. President. And because of Washington's, I think, wisdom, that's what we've done ever since then. But I would say it's not asking too much for Christians to use proper titles for officeholders in government, to take President so-and-so, or Senator, or Governor. I think the most elaborate we do in America is calling Judges your Honor. And some people consider that wrong, like it's a form of idolatry, but I would cite 1 Peter 2, verse 17. Matter of fact, we're close. I'll go over there and read it.

If I can get my Bible to turn there. 1 Peter 2, 17, says...

Help if I go to the proper Peter.

It says, Honor all people! Love the brotherhood! Fear God! Honor the King! So calling someone your Honor isn't necessarily bad.

I did think it worth addressing something that sometimes causes confusion, though, about using titles. Because there are formal rules for writing that I've had ingrained into me because of graduate school. And one of those is that when you're writing, like for a newspaper or a book, the first time in a paragraph that you mention someone's name, you use either their first name or title. Like I would say, President Obama, the first time, but after that, within that paragraph, it's proper to just use the last name. So I might say, President Obama has instituted a new policy, and after that, Obama says, Do this or Obama says that. That's a writing rule not meant to be interpreted in a way that's causing offense. But I'm going to admit, it was hard. When I was writing my dissertation, I was writing a lot about George Washington. And I found it hard to just write about him and just say, Washington did this or Washington did that. I thought, Boy, Frank, they're being a little disrespectful. I followed the rule most of the time. Sometimes I slip in and call him Colonel Washington. I think about it, of course, at the time I was describing him, he was a 23-year-old militia colonel. And of course, the way I'm going in the sermon might make you think that you always have to refer to, as I said, the President as President Obama rather than just Obama. But you'll see it other ways in books and articles that are not necessarily an insult. But there are some people that do the opposite. There are some commentators out there that relish using his full name and say, President Barack Hussein Obama, emphasizing the middle name. Which, it's not bad to use someone's full name, but I do say we should question why we do certain things, whether we're trying to show respect or the opposite.

I remember a couple of years ago, leaning up to the election that happened then when Mr. Obama was elected to a second term, that's when we noticed Conor was listening to TV and radio and starting to pick up words. So we were surprised when Obama was one of his early words. We thought we wanted him to learn to be respectful. We try to teach him to say Mr. or Miss about most people, even first names.

So we taught him to say President Obama. It's funny, he doesn't copy that much anymore. But he also learned to say Mitt Romney a lot back then, too. But before I leave the subject, I want to come back to a point that I hinted to earlier. And that respecting authority, or being submissive to authority, is not always the same as being obedient to that authority.

If we're still, yeah, in 1 Peter, let's look at chapter 2 in verse 13. As I said, I want to draw on a distinction that I think is very important, because I've been emphasizing respect, even when certain people don't deserve respect, necessarily. Peter writes, I think it's significant that Peter didn't use the word obey. He said submit. He also said that by doing good, you'll silence foolish men. Certainly, if the law of man contradicts the law of God, to obey the law of man instead of God's law wouldn't be doing good, it would be doing bad.

And Peter set an example himself that we can see over in Acts 5. Acts 5, and I'll begin in verse 25. This is another story I like to go to often. I've always found it somewhat inspiring.

So when Peter and several of the apostles were arrested for preaching the gospel, preaching about Jesus Christ, and put on trial, and so they'd been arrested once before and then released when they were told not to do this. So they would be arrested again. It says, One came and told them, that is, the council, the Sanhedrin, saying, Look, those men that you put in prison are standing in the temple, teaching the people. And the captain went with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared the people lest they should be stoned. When they brought them, they set them before the council, and the high priest asked them, saying, Didn't we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? Look, you filled Jerusalem with your doctrine and intend to bring this man's blood on us. Peter said, Oh, I'm sorry. I know God tells us to obey every command of government. No, Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. I've always been inspired by that. We ought to obey God rather than men. Here's a clear and easy way to understand that principle. If a law of man contradicts the law of God, we always must obey God. But if you could submit to man's law, or you could... Let me back up. We can disobey man's law, but still submit to it by accepting the punishment that it might bring. We'll see that further in this chapter in verse 40. It says, They agreed with him. This is after a discussion. They called for the apostles, when they called for the apostles, and beaten them. They commanded them that they should not speak in the name of Jesus and let them go. So the apostles didn't fight that punishment. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer gain for his name. And daily in the temple and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching the name of Jesus Christ, or that Jesus is the Christ. So this is a case of being willing to submit to a law by being willing to bear the penalty that it imposes when it's broken. Now, of course, that shouldn't be our first choice. But if it comes down to a choice of either obeying God's law or man's, God always comes first. And hopefully, in most cases, we can do both. It's rare that a law of man contradicts a law of God, but I fear that might happen more often in the future.

And I would say that's an easy to understand principle, but not one that's always easy to practice. It can sometimes be very difficult to be willing to take the penalty for doing what's the right thing. Peter addressed that. Sorry, I should have told you to put your hand there or a finger in 1 Peter 2. But if you would turn back there, I do want to read one more passage from 1 Peter 2, beginning in verse 19.

Here Peter says, And it's good for us, Peter cites and reminds us, he's not asking us to do something that Jesus Christ hasn't done. He did what was right and suffered far worse than any of us ever will. As I said, we could see another example. Again, Daniel being thrown into that lion's den. He defied a law that forbade him to pray to God. So he obeyed God and prayed anyways. And then when they came to arrest him, he didn't fight. He didn't run away or resist. He trusted God and let them throw him in the lion's den. Now, that could make it sound like, well, we're not supposed to defend ourselves in any case. But we can see again from Paul's example that we can and I believe should use the law when it's possible, open to us to avoid punishment or suffering. Back in Acts, chapter 22.

I hope you don't mind if I go a little bit long today. It's not going to be very long. We're nearing an end. But I want to get through this example. Acts 22. This is early on in that long legal battle that Paul had. Of course, he was minding his business as a teacher of God's way, preaching the gospel, and he was arrested. Matter of fact, the Jews wanted to kill him right then and there. And the way the Roman commander says they were about to pull him apart.

Some were yelling one thing and some were yelling another, so he comes in with soldiers and takes him away, but has no idea of what's going on. So he determines that maybe if he beats Paul, Paul will confess. So let's begin reading that in chapter 22 and verse 24.

Why they shouted so against him.

So he said that's what he'd done, but Paul said, but I was born a citizen. And immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him, and the commander also was afraid after he bound him when he found out that he was Roman.

Similarly, Paul would also use the law to appeal to a higher court to avoid being wrongfully executed by the Jews. Over in chapter 25 and verse 9.

So the point I'm making is we should submit to the law, but we can use the law to our advantage at the same time.

Here in chapter 25 and verse 9, Thestus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and there be judged before he concerning these things? So we want to know if he would go back before the Sanhedrin. Paul said, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat where I ought to be judged. Paul was saying I'm a Roman citizen, so being judged in Roman courts is proper. He said, To the Jews I've done no wrong as you well know. For if I'm an offender, if I've committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying. Okay, that's what I was saying. We should submit to the law. If he didn't even worry of death, he didn't object to dying. But if there's nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar. He confessed this when he consulted with the council. The answer is, Well, if you appeal to Caesar, to Caesar you'll go. Now, we don't have this type of thing come up in the church very often, but I've heard stories of men older than me who were drafted to the army, got their draft notice. And they knew, they perceived from the scripture that they shouldn't enlist in the army and go fight. So they didn't just say, Well, I'm not going to do what you say. They appealed as conscientious objectors. The law allowed that. I've known someone who had to serve a number of years doing community service, and the law provided that. Psalm actually were denied and spent time in jail. They were submitting to the government, but obeying God's law first. Of course, I've talked to a number of men about this. The story comes to mind that I've heard the most is talking to Guy Cornish, who actually served as a medic in Vietnam. And that was before he was baptized in the church, but he knew enough of scripture. He didn't feel that he should carry a gun. And he still went over anyways, but he refused to carry a sidearm, but he did save people's lives while he was there. And anyways, that's a high form of showing respect for authority. There are other ways that we can show respect. The Bible talks about us paying our taxes. As much as we don't like them, and believe me, I don't like paying taxes. But in Romans 13, 6, it says to pay taxes to whom taxes are due and custom to whom custom. And we know in Matthew 22, Jesus also said, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. And he was referring to the money that the government actually printed. Another way that we could show respect, I will turn, if you will, to 1 Timothy.

1 Timothy 2. We'll read verses 1 through 3. And I'll say another way that we can show respect to government and even to men or women in office, whether or not they are personally respectable, is by praying for government officials. We have this instruction that Paul wrote to Timothy. He says, Now, and I can't say that I always remember to do this, but I remember to pray for the king and all who are in authority. And I think when I am praying for someone that's in authority, it's hard for me to continue having ill feelings or to feel a strong disrespect for a person for whom I'm praying on an ongoing basis. And that works also, we're also told to love our enemies and pray for them. It's hard to have bad feelings about someone if you're praying for them. Now, praying for someone doesn't mean approving of his or her policies. You might mean, or I could say even praying that they'll be successful in their office, but you can pray that they'll see the light and do what's right and good. You might pray that they'll be in good health, but also be in good mind and come to understand God's way.

And that's important. As I said, we live in an era of free speech, but also because of that gross disrespect and insult. And that's not entirely new to American politics. As my introduction tried to show, it goes back as far as American politics go back. But no matter what era, whatever situation we're in, Christians should stand out as being different. And in an election year, it can be tempting for us to get caught up in the rhetoric, the words that people say, putting down other people. But we need to remember who we are and what we are, that we're God's children. And our citizenship is with God in heaven. We're His children acting as ambassadors on this earth. And as such, we need to do what God expects of us. We must always make our highest loyalty and respect towards God and to His government. But we are required to respect the people that God puts in office and man's government. And we're to submit the laws of those governments, as long as we're obeying God above all else.