 This morning we're back to our study of a theology of public life. Theology of public life lessons for a lot in the city of Sodom. And we are talking about the relationship particularly of the church to the state or the Christian to civil authority. And so we're going to look more this week. We began last week with the historical development of that theology over time. And we started with the early church last week. This week we go toward the end of the early church period just before the start of the medieval period. And we'll look at some more examples this morning. And then we'll follow up with the medieval period into the Reformation next week. So let's pray before we get started. Sixth Oeuletus, brother. Thank you. Holy Father, we come before you today. Father, to praise you, to worship you. Father, to keep our hearts and minds focused on you. Father, help Pastor Mark as he prepares to teach us this morning. Father, that we would just not be listening, Father, but we would be putting on what he teaches us, Lord, that we would receive what you have for us, Lord, and that your spirit will guide them. I pray, Father, for today, you know, Lord, every day is a gift from you, Lord. So thank you for it. I pray for our group down in the Habon with Pastor Jerome and the others, Father, that you would continue to use them, Father, to work in that field, Father, that's just ready for harvesting, Father, that you would guide their conversations, Father, that you would protect their hearts. That those that are coming daily or nightly, Father, to hear the gospel, Father, would desire to know you better, Father, could become part of the future church, Plant, Lord, pray for Pastor Jerome, Father, as you prepare him every day, Father, to bring the message, Father, and so encouraged, Father, by what he's been sharing, Father, how you've brought him along, Father, and speaking of the language, Father, and the understanding of the culture, Lord, and I pray that you continue to grow him, Father. We give you glory this day, Father, for this day is a day that we come together to worship you, Father, and help us to repent, Father, of those things that we've not laid at your feet today, Father, and we thank you for these things in Christ's name. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Brother. That's a joy to think about the folks in Dahabon. If you haven't heard, we have 16 people on that team down there, and some from the church in New York, last trip, there were a brother and sister from the church in Guatemala, and so very excited about getting those churches involved also. So that's a joy, keep them in prayer. Okay, historic development. Last week, we began to, in our theology of public life, in cultivating a theology of public life, began to consider the experience of the early church and the early church in their persecution, their enduring of persecution, and that persecution arising at the hands of the civil authorities at the time, and that persecution really over one of the earliest creeds in the early church, which was Jesus Christ is Lord, not Caesar is Lord. And as we considered the early church, we began to compile a list, if you will, of assertions, and we're going to do that given time. We're building up to what I believe will be some good assertions that we as a church can affirm that will guide us as we move into the future on this issue, a theology of public life, or in particular, on how the church or the Christian relates to the civil authority. There'll be a list of assertions that I think will work through, teach through. When that time comes, it'll help us sort of consolidate all that we're learning. And that's going to come during the application section here in a few more weeks. But the assertions so far are that Jesus Christ has absolute authority. Absolute authority belongs to the Son of God. All authority has been given to me, Jesus said, Matthew 28, therefore go and make disciples. Jesus Christ alone has absolute sovereign authority. Secondly, the church is distinct from the state. Contrary to much popular opinion, the early church, the church in particular, doesn't conceive of a blending of church and state. And they sort of falsely characterize Israel that way in the theocracy. But there is a distinction between ecclesial authority and civil authority. And the church from its earliest, from the onset of the church in the New Testament, we see that distinction clearly in the thinking of church leaders. His kingdom is not of this world. And so there's a distinction between his kingdoms and the kingdoms of this world. We're going to see that this morning in Augustine. And thirdly, third assertion is both the church and the state have biblical and therefore legitimate claims. The church has legitimate claim to a delegated authority. And the state has a legitimate claim to delegated authority. Both exercise their authority within the sphere of their jurisdiction. And where those claims run contrary to one another, the authority of the Son is absolute. And we are to obey him. Okay. Christians frequently became the repeated targets of persecution under tyrannical civil authority. When civil authority runs into tyranny, often Christians become the repeated targets of persecution. Some periods of peace were enjoyed during the early church. And those were interspersed with severe periods of persecution. The first of those severe periods of persecution, we talked about last week under Nero, emperor Nero in the first century, emperor over the Roman Empire. Nero blamed Christians for the great fire, as it's called, in AD 64. A fire that Nero had reportedly started himself destroyed 10 of the 14 city wards in the city of Rome. And Christians were targeted. Tacitus, a Roman historian at the time, reported that Nero had Christians torn by dogs, nailed to crosses, even used as human torches to illumine his gardens at night. So the persecution against Christians during that time, very great. The second period of great persecution during the early church was under emperor Deceus, began in 249 AD. And Deceus was the first really to require what was called a Lebellus, or Lebelli. And a Lebellus was a certificate that attested that Caesar is Lord, and attested that this person had offered incense to the gods. So in order to attain a Lebelli, a Lebellus, you had to offer incense to the Roman pantheon of gods. I had to assert that Caesar was Lord, and then this Lebellus could be used to buy and sell, to trade, to do business. That was where your traveling papers, so to speak. Anyone who was found without that Lebellus, without that certificate, was often imprisoned. They were tested, often under torture, and found to be a Christian executed, thrown to the dogs, so to speak, in the Coliseum. That severe persecution under emperor Deceus, probably the worst of the periods of persecution in the early church, came under emperor Diocletian. It was called the Great Persecution, began February 23rd, 303 AD. Galerius, who was Diocletian's second in command, Galerius enforced the persecution with a series of edicts requiring sacrifice to the Roman pantheon of gods, requiring attestation that Caesar is Lord. There were eight years of arrests that followed, the burning of scriptures, destroying of churches, wherever they were found. Torture was mercilessly employed. Christians were thrown to the beast. Christians were burned at the stake. Crucifixion was common. Stabbing, death by stabbing was common. The rack was used during this time, became very common. And in the midst of that, the Great Persecution, the Great Persecution, the church substantially grew, leading Tertullian to say that the seed of the martyrs, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. And so these three great periods of persecution interspersed with some degree of peace, but nevertheless, the early church severely persecuted for their stand for Christianity, their stand for the gospel. It was in 309 AD then that Emperor Constantine appointed a Berber Christian convert as his son's tutor. A Berber Christian, a Berber was one who was in Northern Africa. So there was an area in Northern Africa that were called the Berbers, and this was a Berber, a Northern African convert to Christianity. And Constantine, this was after the Great Persecution of under Diocletian in 303 AD, in 309, Emperor Constantine, who began to be sympathetic to the Christians based upon their testimony, began to be sympathetic to Christians, hired or appointed a Christian convert as his son's tutor. Under this tutor, Constantine was becoming increasingly tolerant of Christians, increasingly tolerant of Christianity. The tutor's name, this Berber Christian, his name was Lactantius, Lactantius. Lactantius, while he was teaching Constantine's son, wrote a treatise called The Divine Institutes. And the Divine Institutes taught that religious liberty, on the grounds that true religion could only be offered, true worship could only be offered by someone who was freely willing, could only be offered from the heart, and that only false worship could be compelled or coerced. So you see what Lactantius was saying, true worship is from the heart, true worship could not be coerced or compelled at the tip of the sword, so to speak, true worship was free worship. Religious liberty, worship offered freely. Well, that made sense to Constantine. And so Constantine, in 311, two years later, wrote the Edict of Toleration. The Edict of Toleration eventually led to the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. It was in 312 AD, I'm going to throw in all these dates at you, but we're in that same period of time. In 312 AD, Constantine was fighting a war against a rival in Rome, Maxentius, like all those Roman general names, Maxentius, you know, fighting a rival there for power. And Constantine was reported to have seen a sign in the heavens, a sign of the cross, a flaming cross in the sky, with the words, in this sign, conquer. And so Constantine took that to be a sign from God, painted crosses on the shields of all his army, and went into battle for the Milvian Bridge, and won a decisive battle against Maxentius. And so then Constantine wrote the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, using language from the divine institutes, from his sons Tutor Lactantius, and established religious liberty in Rome. It wasn't that Constantine established Christianity as the official state religion, that didn't happen under Constantine. Constantine established religious liberty in Rome, which ended Christian persecution at the hands of the government, okay? It was no longer the civil authority who would, as a program of the state, persecute Christians. It ended, if you will, state-sponsored religious persecution, in particular, the persecution of Christians. There was maintained at that time a distinction between church and state. It wasn't until Theodosius I, in 380 AD that Christianity would become a state religion, and that would be with the Edict of Thessalonica. So Emperor Theodosius made Christianity in 380 AD the state religion, and we see all kinds of issues that then arise from that failure to distinguish between the two. All this to say, and maybe some object lessons that we can pull from this example of persecution in the early church, is that the church can, does, and will grow even in the face of government opposition. And it appears to be that when government opposition or opposition persecution from civil authorities is at its greatest, that the church grows its fastest and spreads. The Lord will build His church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her. The church, secondly, the church as a public institution was not under the direct authority of the state. And Christianity is one of the only, the only, religion that is spread without some type of government coerced support that grew in the face of opposition. And all of this, if you're following along, all of this we're sort of following Glenn Sunshine's outline in his book Slaying Leviathan, which I commend to you, really helpful for some of this historical background. Okay. Once Constantine established religious liberty in the Roman Empire with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, immediately there were two tests for the emperor with respect to religious liberty, two tests that arose in the empire. The first, well, I want to talk about it first, was the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea. There arose in the church at that time a conflict over the person in work of the Lord Jesus Christ, over the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. On one side was Athanasius and Athanasius alone. That's why you see or hear of terms like Athanasius against the world, so to speak. Athanasius stood alone for the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. On the other side was Arius and all of the followers of Arius and Arianism, and they believe that Jesus is the first and highest created being. And Jesus is a created being and not God in the flesh. Constantine didn't impose himself upon this conflict in the church, which is good. Constantine merely facilitated its resolution. Constantine called for a council to settle the matter. He facilitated the location, facilitated the place where the council would take place, and then invited all of the pastors, bishops to come to Nicaea to settle the matter, and Constantine himself stayed out of it. And he allowed the church to settle its own dispute, which is really good. It was Constantine showing restraint in allowing the church to handle its own doctrinal dispute. The second of these tests for the emperor Constantine after his edict on religious liberty was the Donatist controversy. The Donatist, we're talking about it, second actually came first. It was 303 AD and after. The controversy began in 303 and continued to grow in intensity over time until the point in around 313 AD where it couldn't be ignored any longer and something had to be done. And that began under the Diocletian persecution and was ended after the edict of toleration, after the edict of Milan when Constantine sort of forced its resolution. The Donatists, if you're familiar with that heresy and that conflict in the early church, believed that priests who, and they didn't have priests at the time, priests who acted faithlessly under persecution were illegitimate priests. They were traitors or traitors, you could say, and were considered illegitimate priests. And so the Donatists believed that any sacrament that was performed on the part of these illegitimate, traitorous, treacherous priests, the sacrament itself was illegitimate. And so if you were baptized by a Trotetores, your baptism didn't count and you had to be rebaptized. If you were ordained by one of them, your ordination didn't count, you had to be reordained, right? This was the Donatist movement, the Donatist heresy. All the sacraments performed by those traitorous priests were invalidated. And that was because, if you can imagine, under the great persecution, pastors, Christians being rounded up and oftentimes put under torture and oftentimes were let go with a firm beating, an ear cut off or a nose cut off or a hand cut off and said not to preach in the name of Jesus Christ any longer. And then when they were found to be preaching the gospel, they were then executed, taken to the Coliseum, thrown to dogs, crucified. So the severe persecution. And so there were those who professed to be Christians who were priests, pastors, professing Christians who gave in to the temptation under pressure, under persecution and recanted the name of Jesus Christ and followed Jesus Christ no longer, went and left the faith altogether. And so then when the edict of toleration is passed in 311, the edict of Milan in 313, these trotatories coming back into the faith, so to speak. And if you can imagine, like maybe the picture at a council, like the council at Nicaea, and you've got bishops there, leaders of the church there, with their nose cut off, with their ear cut off, because they stood under the persecution. And then these coming in, having departed the faith for a period of time under persecution, now coming back into the faith, there were those Donatists who believed that they were illegitimate. They should not be allowed back in and that anything that they did was renounced with their recantation. And so there was this schism that began to be developed between those who withstood persecution and those who did not withstand persecution and gave rise to this schism in the church. So the Donatists believed that that trotitaurus was illegitimate. 313 AD, ascended in Rome, acquitted, let me give you the background to this before I make this point. There was a bishop during this time under this period. There was a bishop who was appointed in Carthage, which is Northern African. This was a Berber bishop appointed at Carthage and he was ordained by, he himself was not, but he was ordained by trotitaurus, someone who surrendered under persecution. And so the Donatists in Northern Africa believed this one, his name was Sicilian, believed that he was illegitimate, that he should not, could not be appointed as a bishop of Carthage because he was ordained by a trotitaurus and so he had to be reordained by the church if he was to be appointed. So they believed that his appointment as Bishop of Carthage was illegitimate. This again developed a schism in the church at Carthage and so a synod was called in Rome to answer the question, to decide the matter and they went to Rome to consult bishops in Rome, leaders in Rome and Rome acquitted Sicilian, biblically so, rightfully so we would say, acquitted Sicilian of accusations and they excommunicated Donatists, who was the leader of the Donatists. The council at Carthage then later sided with Sicilian and then the council, a council called it Arles, sided with Sicilian. So each of these matters was appealed to another council, three councils all sided with Sicilian against the Donatists. Donatists himself was excommunicated and so what did the Donatists do? The Donatists responded with riots. They rioted. 317, Emperor Constantine does what Emperor Constantine should have done. What does the government rightfully do? What authority does the government rightly have under God in protecting its people? It has the right of the sword, right, the power of the sword. The government wields the authority of the sword to protect its citizens and so Constantine didn't jump in to handle a schism in the church and resolve the schism in the church. Constantine didn't insert himself into a doctrinal matter of the church but when the Donatists, these heretics began to riot, Constantine did exactly what the government is supposed to do, what the government is warranted, called by God to do. Constantine exercised the power of the sword and jumped in to stop the riots. Okay, so in 317 an edict was written by Constantine against the Donatists employing the death penalty for the Donatists who would riot and disturb the peace. Some of them were put to death by rebaptism and rebaptism because they were rebaptizing those who were baptized by illegitimate priests so I'm sure that was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek move on the part of Constantine. We're going to see rebaptism or death by rebaptism later under the Anabaptists during the Reformation period for the same kind of reason but this was an edict against the Donatists and Constantine exercising the power of the sword to maintain the peace. So quell riots and Constantine was doing this in part as well to protect religious liberty. Constantine had called for peace against the Donatists and called for the Donatists to exercise toleration with those who didn't agree with them Constantine was calling for peace but when peace couldn't be maintained the government stepped in to assure it. That's a rightful act on the part of the government to do that, right? So we see two tests, right? The tests of the Donatists and the Council at Nicaea both good tests for this new edict on religious liberty and for Constantine who had sort of grown in his understanding of religious liberty and it was a good example of how church-state relations can operate rightfully in the same context with two different jurisdictions, okay? So let's add to our assertions then. Assertion one, Jesus Christ has absolute sovereign authority. Two, the church is distinct from the state. Three, both church and state have biblical and therefore legitimate claims. Fourth then, adding to our list of assertions, the state has no authority over a Christian's conscience. In other words, we're to stand for the state should stand for and support soul liberty or liberty of conscience. That conscience cannot be compelled or coerced by the state. All right, we see that in the example of Constantine. All right, with Constantine and with these struggles in the early church, although it's a good example and we see church and state operating rightly as it were during this time period, this would begin a centuries-long tug-of-war between church and state, dealing with the lines or the boundaries between those two jurisdictions, between the jurisdiction of the church and the state and the boundaries between the two. The boundaries always over, really over the next thousand years, the boundaries, 1200 years, the boundaries shifting back and forth and beyond that, beyond the Reformation even, there's this tug-of-war between the church and the state. Questions of state authority in other spheres began to be asked, not just spheres of the church, but now questions of state authority in other spheres also began to be asked. The civil sphere, for example, in civil sphere, if you remember the writings of Kuiper, Abraham Kuiper, the civil sphere including family, including a business or trade. At that time, there would have been guilds, confraternities, schools, labor, in other words, this civil sphere, and questions began to be asked about government intervention or the boundaries of government jurisdiction with respect to the civil sphere. These spheres, it was believed, should be allowed to able to govern their own affairs. The family structures should be governed by the family, schools run by the school, businesses run by the business owner. These spheres, the various spheres that began to develop in political thought at the time were asserting their right to govern their own affairs and sometimes the spheres failed to do that appropriately. So, and we see that in history, we see it even today, family structures collapse, schools fail to teach effectively or appropriately, businesses act unethically. That happens a lot through history, right, the exploitation of workers. Then workers unionize and you see the unscrupulous actions on the part of unionized labor. So businesses act unethically, labor organizations become corrupt. When this happens, there's a temptation for another sphere and almost inevitably for the governmental, the state sphere, to step in and fix the problem rather than work to revitalize the failing sphere. And oftentimes it's the government that does this inappropriately. The problem with that is that government doesn't have the competence to do it. We see that very prevalently in our own day. Right now, we see that going on. Government does not have the competence nor the investment nor the tools necessary to solve the problems in another sphere. Think with me about some examples of that, right? When government, for example, our president in a press conference just sort of leaning over the podium and saying, pay them more. Talking about higher wages. Easy for our president to say when he isn't the owner of a small business strapped for cash, doing what they can to survive, really easy for him to say a decree from on high, so to speak, to tell them they need to pay higher wages, right? He doesn't have the competence in that small business to make that decision. He doesn't have the investment. The heart, soul, sweat, toil invested in that small business to make that kind of decision. And yet, there are politicians all over the place who will only too readily jump in with their decrees and make those decisions with no skin in the game, so to speak, right? Happens all over the place. Government will routinely do that with respect to the family when they aren't the parents of that child. They'll routinely do that with the school. When they have no competence to make dictates with respect to education. They're doing it right now with border patrol. They're doing it with the police. They have not the competence that our police chiefs, for example, often do. They don't have the competence to police. They need to, they can regulate maybe, in some cases, to avoid exploitation or to avoid abuse. But you let the people who know what they're doing do what they know how to do, okay? Government does not have the competence or the investment necessary to solve these problems. Therefore, in its attempts to quote unquote help, government often makes matters worse. And government then treads on, undermines, usurps the authority properly and biblically delegated to another sphere. That ultimately is the problem is the government steps in invades another sphere where there's already been delegated authority given to someone to exercise that authority biblically under God in that sphere with confidence and with investment with the tools that God has given them. Sixth oh. The amendment passed that you had to pay $15 an hour. Yeah, very good. Right. So you have a very good question. I think this, this may be a really good discussion at some point. Maybe when we get to the social justice part of this study to talk about minimum wage laws. Right. We would see minimum wage laws as a government intrusion into the sphere of someone else's workplace. Right. We have the God given right to work. And a government, I think does have a vested interest. Government does have a vested interest in regulating abuses. So for example, when government wants to protect its citizens from exploitation, slave labor, sweatshops. Right. That there can be legitimate a legitimate interest on the part of civil government in protecting its own citizens in regulating what we would consider to be criminal abuse. Right. The government does have an interest in protecting its citizens from crime. And so that would be something that the populace would determine or would define. That which is criminal and then the government can enforce laws against criminal abuse of labor. But government does not have the right, so to speak, to intrude upon the sphere of another's work and determine for that person what they're going to do and how they're going to do it. Government should stay out of that sphere. It has no competence. In other words, really simple. These things I realize we're getting into the into areas that are debatable by Christians, obviously. And so we all have our opinions. Really, really simple for Amazon, for example, just to say, oh, yeah, we can pay $15 an hour. But a far different matter for mom and pop shop on the corner that's been there for 30 years who's eking by with a very low profit margin for them to say, well, of course, we're going to pay $15 an hour. Karen and I went out to eat last week and had to wait for a seat at a restaurant. And we looked around and it's like half the restaurant is empty. Their tables open all over the place. The reason that we had to wait is because they don't have enough workers to fill those places. And part of the problem may be in the future. There aren't enough workers because they're expecting of a mom and pop restaurant to pay more than it could or should. I've already heard what you're what you're going to find is already we see it right now, for example, in McDonald's, automated. You go into the thing and you can go to the screen and do it yourself and then go to the counter and get your food. They're slowly working out people altogether. When I was growing up, really, really young, I remember the example that Thomas Sowell used. When you went to the movie theater, there was a young boy, you know, 12, 14 years old, whatever the case may be, who would walk you to your seat? And what was the purpose? I had a paper out when I was a kid. You know, when I was a kid, I had to pay. I was 13 years old, riding my bike, five o'clock in the morning, throwing papers out of a bag. The purpose of that wasn't the $2.30 wage that I earned an hour to do that. The purpose of that was to teach me responsibility, to teach me work ethic. You know, my dad was teaching me good lessons by forcing me to get up early and wrap papers. That's gone, right? All of that today is gone because we've got to pay people a livable wage. Let free enterprise, the business owner determine what that's going to be and let the worker determine what they're willing to work for. I don't think the government has a right to intrude upon work. Work is a right given to us by God. You can have your own opinions about that. That's mine. So take it for what it is. Okay. When government intrudes that way, that's called tyranny. When government intrudes over the boundaries of its jurisdiction, it's called tyranny. As Glenn Sunshine would say, it's Leviathan rising, right? Leviathan rising. All right. All of this then brings us to one of the most influential theologians in church history and that is St. Augustine. St. Augustine is a city in Florida. St. Augustine is a theologian in the early church. The St. Augustine. St. Augustine saw after the edict of toleration and the edict of Milan and Constantine's efforts against the Donatis in particular, St. Augustine saw the use of state power to crack down on heretics as a good use of state power, as a necessary use of state power as a good function of the governing authorities. St. Augustine used the Lord's words. Think with me now. St. Augustine used the Lord's words in Luke chapter 14 verse 23, the parable of the great supper. Right? If you remember that, the parable. He was told, the servant was told to go out and call for people to come to the feast. Right? Come to the feast. Come to the feast. All you come and people one at a time declined. They had other things to do. I've got to go look at a piece of land. I've got to go take care of my ox. I've got to, you know. So in verse 23, the parable of the great supper, the master then says, being angry, he said to his servant, go out quickly then into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind. And the servant said, master, it is done as you commanded and still there is room. Verse 23. Then the master said to the servant, go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in. That my house may be filled for I say to you that none of those men who were invited shall taste my supper. Well, Augustine took that word compel and he interpreted that to mean force, coerce, strong arm, others to come in. Compel was used as a justification for the use of force on the part of the government or on the part of the state to coerce heretics, heretics to come back into the church. In other words, the state in Augustine's thinking, the state then has the right and responsibility and using this schism with the donatists as an example, the state has the right and the responsibility to compel heretics to get their act in order and to come back to the church and to get in line with biblical doctrine again. And so that was what Augustine was doing or that was what Constantine was doing when he used force against the donatists. He was forcing them back into orthodoxy. And so Augustine thought that was a proper use of the sword. So Augustine, in clarifying his thinking, this is a development if you can think with me, right? This is a development of political thought in the early church on the part of a theologian attempting to develop or cultivate a theology of public life in particular with respect to a Christian's relation to the state or the state's relationship to the church. And this was Augustine's developing thought. Praise the Lord, we've developed in our thought since Augustine with respect to that, but this is how this began, right? In the time of Augustine, the Roman Empire was beginning to crumble under a lyric, the first Germanic people known as the Visigoths besieged Rome. They'd been attacking on the fringes of Rome in the western part of the empire for many, many years, but now the Visigoths under a lyric, the first invaded Italy and sacked the city of Rome in 410 AD. So shortly after all this business with Constantine and the Donatists and now this is the time of Augustine. So Pagans in the Empire believed that the crumbling of the Roman Empire was a result of Christians. Got too many Christians in here were abandoning our pagan gods, abandoning our Roman pantheon of gods, our Roman roots, so to speak. And because we've been, you know, because Christianity has become a predominant religion in the Empire, now we're seeing the crumbling, the crumbling, the defeat of the Roman Empire. Augustine believed it wasn't because the Empire was too Christian. Augustine believed that the Empire wasn't Christian enough. And that's why Rome had been defeated and why the Empire was crumbling. And so the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 AD became the backdrop for Augustine's, arguably Augustine's most influential work which is the city of God. So rather short, half a million words treat us on the part of Augustine regarding the city of God and the city of man. Let me give you Augustine's introduction. We won't get too far into this. This is page five, right? So Rome, having been stormed and sacked by the Goths under Euleric, their king, the worshipers of false gods or pagans, as we commonly call them, made an attempt to attribute this calamity to the Christian religion and began to blaspheme the true God with even more than their wanton, wanton bitterness and acerbicity. They were mad. It was this which kindled my zeal for the house of God and prompted me to undertake the defense of the city of God against the charges and misrepresentations of its assailants. You see what Augustine's thinking, right? Augustine is thinking it's not that we're too Christian, it's that we're not Christian enough. And they believe that we were sacked because we're not paying homage to pagan gods. No, we're not paying enough homage to the one true and living god. And so Augustine sits down to begin writing the city of God in which he contrasts the city of God and the city of earth or the city of man and the responsibilities associated with or the characteristics associated with each. This is the first of several major developments in cultivating a theology of public life particularly with respect to the civil authority that we're going to look at in the course of our view of historical development. Okay. The first of several and this is going to the theology of Augustine on this issue is going to have impact and influence for more than a thousand years and more than 1200 years and all kinds of atrocities are committed under the Augustine theology on the issue. We'll talk about that in a minute. Augustine argues that there are two cities in the world. Notice there are two cities in the world, right? The city of man the city of the earth and the city of God, right? Augustine, one of the things that Augustine was also known for in exceedingly Augustine exceedingly influential on theology today. Reform theology in particular Catholics claim that him as their own reformers often claim him as their own. Augustine it could be said was sometimes straddling the line between the two but one of the most influential works in theology that Augustine had done was his work on original sin. And so Augustine saw that because of original sin governments were necessary. In other words, it was a mercy on the part of God on the part of God to establish the institution of civil authority for the restraining of wickedness that had spread in the earth after the fall, okay? So governments became necessary but they weren't a natural necessity. They were a mechanical necessity. In other words, it was a mechanical institution something that had to be put in place and function for the restraint of wickedness that wasn't as God had intended from the beginning, okay? And because governments instituted by God consisted of human beings they were innately corrupt because of original sin. You put a fallen man in government and what you're going to get is sinful government corrupted government polluted government. So the city of man then, right? These two cities the city of man was marked by fallen and depraved lusts. The city of man marked by self-love self-indulgence self-serving self-aggrandizing an absence of virtue marked by a pursuit of power a pursuit of lust and government was instituted by God to restrain that evil and government then naturally turns evil and corrupt itself because it's filled with corrupt and evil people and government then under the influence of fallen man after original sin after the fall becomes then organized oppression inevitably inevitably becomes organized oppression maintaining its power and its ability to pursue power and pursue lusts through coercion threats and violence and that's what human governments eventually turn into all of that is in contrast with the city of God right and Augustine describes the city of God as marked by characterized by love for God heart, soul, mind and strength and love for neighbor virtue alone is found in the city of God no other place where virtue may be found but in the city of God it's only inhabitants the only inhabitants of the city of God are Christians since they alone have been given the grace to overcome the effects of the fall and original sin and inclinations to corruption and so we have this cooperation then or this relationship in the world between the city of God and the city of man Glenn Sunshine in his book Slaying the Viathan has a good description of how these two cities interrelate to one another from the writings of Augustine so listen to this he says even though all human societies need virtue to survive since they belong to the city of man they lack true virtue that's an important statement all human societies need virtue to survive apart from virtue all human societies are doomed to failure hours included okay at some point they're going to devolve into tyranny or anarchy or chaos or right lawlessness and so all human societies need virtue to survive since they belong to the city of man they lack true virtue now this is again this isn't the thought of Augustine the best they can do is promote a somalochrom of virtue through the threat a bit a little bit of virtue through the threat of force this is one area where the interests of the city of god intersect those of the city of man they have an interest in restraining evil and promoting some somalochrom of virtue both cities share an interest in promoting good behavior and so you would think then that both cities should be able to cooperate in some degree though they have an interest in promoting good behavior for different purposes and using very different means the city of man uses terror the threat of violence to compel good behavior and to protect good people from the wicked whereas the city of god relies on only penitent grace and mercy not compulsion to advance its goals yet despite these differences the work of each city can complement the other the magistrates threat of violence may contribute to the growth of the city of god by encouraging penitence while the city of god's emphasis on virtue can lead to the stability of the city of man further the city of god can encourage the city of man toward the good though without taking on the responsibility for making laws while the city of man can promote good behavior through the courts and can defend society and provide stability to allow the city of god to flourish so in agustin's thought agustin rightly biblically I think attempting to think through process through how these two cities can coordinate and complement in their rightful authority given by god so um both pursue similar goals then but with different reasons and different aims this allows for cooperation all right want to continue talking about that but any questions at this point so far city of god city of man okay oh question oh hey brother yes sir can ask a question a little further back with the don with the donatists yes sir if if and when a persecution arises and it becomes very difficult and brothers are tortured and persecuted as they were back then and some deny the lord and they they deny the lord and they just to get away from the persecution yeah and they want to later come back in how are we to respond yeah yeah I think that's a very good question brother and we have biblical recourse for that and so I don't want to you know and thinking about that particular subject and the donatist controversy don't want it to don't want to diminish or belittle the severity of the persecution right and many of you remember the for example the the testimony of Luther at the council of verms or the died of verms where Luther had to take a day here's this this bull in a china shop and Luther who is just a stalwart defender of the faith but it's like give me a day you know let me it's severe it's under the threat of death under the threat of severe persecution and so listen we'd all like to say that I'll stand I'll give my life I'll but I would submit to you that is in the power of the spirit alone because I think left to our own flesh none would stand for Jesus Christ in that way but it is a spirit rock grace that under threat of such severe persecution that Christians do stand but to deny Jesus Christ and specifically the Lord says to deny his words he'll deny us before the father that Christians are those who are willing in faith to go to their deaths if necessary to take a stand for the gospel and so when someone and there are people who leave our churches who leave the body of Christ you know depart appear to apostatize entirely from the faith for far less far less than that kind of severe persecution and the only acceptable the only acceptable means of their restoration is true and genuine repentance right and the church I think has the church as a body has a responsibility to affirm the validity or the veracity of that genuine repentance even then that departure and that apparent apostasy is accompanied by the severest of threats from scripture those who have been once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift and the good the spirit of power of the ages to come how he words that their Paul words that or those who have sinned willfully after receiving a knowledge of the truth there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment you know they trample for themselves again the blood of the covenant counted as a common thing so we can't take either lightly but the only means that the church has of either putting someone out from their fellowship who doesn't stand under temptation or of receiving one back is church discipline on the one hand and genuine repentance on the other and so excuse me force is never an appropriate inappropriate means and that's what gets Augustine in trouble I think Constantine handled it seems to have handled it correctly it was Augustine that misinterpreted all that so does that answer your question brother all right thank you brother okay so talking about then cooperation between the two between the state and the church there is a theological justification for Christians then in Augustine's thinking there is a theological justification for Christians to be involved in and heavily evolved in civil government Christians in whatever sphere they find themselves should be about promoting real virtue true virtue true goodness and can do so as a member of the civil government or as someone who is a civil magistrate or someone who's involved with civil authorities they can work to advance in that case they can work to advance the plans and purposes the good aims of both the city of man and the city of God simultaneously they can work for the good of both and should in Augustine's thinking that because virtue belongs alone to the city of God genuine Christians who enjoy that presence of that virtue should do all they can to bring virtue to the city of man in hopes of winning lost people to the gospel another good came out of Augustine's thought and that was what is called Augustine's pessimism Augustine because of original sin believed that governments are inevitably corrupt and polluted and going nowhere good and so because of Augustine's pessimism there arose a compelling need as it were for checks and balances on government and so in the thinking even at the time of Augustine we're talking the fourth fifth century AD even at the time of Augustine they were thinking of checks and balances on civil authority to prevent the spread of corruption among the civil government and the abuse of their power in its relationship to the church and so checks and balances began to be asserted it wasn't really until later that the divine right of kings became something that was more asserted or popularized at this time people were thinking of checks and balances a check against tyranny okay so a couple of good things about Augustine's thought let me give you the dark side then the dark side of Augustine's thought the berber bishop Donatus the one from the Donatus to controversy the trotatories or traders a must repent must confess to a bishop who did not compromise and then must do penance in order to be admitted back into the church Augustine argued that the sacraments were effective on the basis of the finished work of Christ alone so not the purity of some priest administering the sacraments but the the efficaciousness if you will of the sacrament the effectiveness of the sacrament was based entirely on the finished work of Christ alone and Augustine in thinking of this argued that since restoring heretics to orthodoxy is good then using coercion to compel heretics to orthodoxy was also good thank you brother and Augustine then in that thinking sets the precedent for later state magistrates to become the enforcers of ecclesial authority with respect to orthodoxy so this thought on the part of Augustine then opens the door to heresy trials opens the door to inquisitions executions of heretics wars of religion utilizing the sword of civil authority the tools of the city of man to limit or eliminate religious liberty blurred the boundary lines then between church and state jurisdictions and that error predominated in the city of man as it were civil authority civil thought for the next thousand years and became very prevalent Pope Galatius we'll finish with this 492 to 496 also a berber pope sealed the deal with Augustine's taking a cue from Augustine's thinking and he identified the church with the city of God identified the church with the city of God in a letter to eastern emperor Anastasius the first decorus he wrote this letter to this emperor there are two powers august emperor or impressive emperor which hold first place in ruling this world namely the sacred authority of the priest and the royal authority the authority of the emperor of these that of the priest is weightier so emperor or pope Galatius is about to assert his rights over civil authority okay the pope that of the priests the authority of the priest is weightier since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment you are also aware most clement son most merciful son that while you are permitted honorably to rule over humankind yet in divine matters you bend your neck devotedly to the bishops and await from them the means of your salvation in the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly sacraments you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order and then in these things you depend on their judgment rather than wish them to bend to your will if the ministers of religion recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven and matters affecting the public order obey your laws lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of their secular affairs by irrelevant irrelevant considerations with what readiness should you not yield to them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion accordingly um anesthesias no slight danger befalls bishops that they keep silent concerning the divine cult which is appropriate giving these given these things there is no little risk for those who despise God forbid when they ought to obey he's calling on the emperor to obey him you see and it's fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs how much more is obedience due to the bishop of that diocese which the most high ordained to be above all others he's talking about Rome in other words this is where the popes come into play and begin to assert their authority over civil government so the emperor of Rome then the emperor is responsible to handle the affairs of his office in subordination to the pope we can talk about where that term pope comes from another time political theorists refer to this as two swords theory the two swords theory this came out of Augustine's thought that God has given two swords to the church the greater sword is for its sacred jurisdiction or ecclesial jurisdiction the lesser sword for its secular or civil jurisdiction the church is over both and the church lends the lesser sword to the state but has authority over it Gillesius essentially claims authority over the whole of the church as the bishop of Rome and over the whole of civil government as the bishop of Rome and this leads to significant issues problems over the next 1200 years before the time of the reformation even after the reformation we see this sort of confusion on the part of Calvin even on the part of Luther in how the civil magistrate is to conduct themselves in relationship to the church next week we'll get into the middle ages we'll see where Augustine's thought needs some serious revision and then we'll talk more about how that leads to our own system of government so let's say if you have any questions to be happy to talk to you about that feel free to come and ask and let's prepare our hearts for worship pray with me Father in heaven thank you for this time Lord thank you for the day set aside on which we can worship and praise you be with us now Lord as we prepare our hearts for worship help us to think through these issues think through this theology of public life and help us to think clearly about our responsibilities to the state our responsibility to you in relationship to the state and to think clearly about when the state over steps their boundaries that we might honor you rather than men we love you we thank you for this time together in Jesus name Amen