We must fight against the scourge of the left-wing, today represented by the Democratic Party, which has turned against our American heritage, by renewing our emphasis upon the holiness and supremacy of Almighty God through His Son, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

There is a mistaken idea in many churches that Jesus Christ – the Biblical Christ whom we love and worship – was apolitical. This is a wrong conception. Jesus is above all politics. He is the Supreme Being. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” (1 Co 1:16) Therefore, as Creator of Heaven and Earth, He cannot be identified with any politician per se or with any party. All parties are answerable to Him. And He rules in an absolute sense when there were judges over the population as described in the Old Testament, during the eras of emperors and kings as described in the Bible and in historical texts, magistrates (as in Calvin’s Switzerland or in Puritan Massachusetts), as well as Federalist, Whig, Democratic-Republican, Republican, or Democrat Congressional representatives and Presidents.

But the question that continues to pull us into questioning mode is: to what extent does a king or any ruler or set of rulers represent society? This persistent question in part comes from social contract theory. The three great theorists of government in the modern era are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. All three performed a type of “thought experiment” whereby each imagined a “state of nature” (not a real historical “state”) where government and a societal or cultural order was not commissioned by “the people.” Then a social contract was entered into to solve problems that could not be solved without a government, laws, and customs of interaction (our mores). This social contract was to be understood as the basis of our common existence as nation-states. It is both written and un-written.

But these social contract theorists made the mistake of putting all the weight of their compacts with the people on those two parties. Hobbes saw all right residing in the King, that he had an absolute mandate through the contract, and this mandate was inviolable by the people. John Locke, like Hobbes, believed that royal government was constituted to protect natural rights; but unlike Hobbes, believed that the government – the kings—could be overthrown if they were not protecting those rights, or if they were actually riding slipshod over those rights. And Rousseau, perceived the entire idea of the social contract as a sham, declaring that people were much better off without a government because the civilized state with its governments were destroying the natural happiness and equality that existed in a state of nature.

Today’s communists have a similar vision to that held by Rousseau, namely that there is a natural state of equality, and the laws that issue forth to protect life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, are always misapplied. They claim our society is built on a series of historical and economic lies, and that faith in God and salvation through Christ is one of those lies. The left (formerly referred to as “liberals,” yet now anything but liberal) claims the “governments of law” (now existing in the West, and most especially the USA), are just charades protecting the rich and powerful from being dispossessed by a needy people who are barred from happiness by selfish interests that reject people because of their gender, race, disabilities, low income, sexual orientation, and age. Thus, these lefties side with Rousseau, but also in some ways see themselves as carrying out Locke’s view that an oppressive government that deprives people of their natural rights can and should be legitimately overthrown.

The Protestant thinkers of the Reformation however often referred to there being two social contracts: one between the King and the people he ruled over, and the other being between the King or ruler and Almighty God. The King thus had two accountabilities – one to the people and the other to God. The book explaining this two-sided social contract was called Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, published in the 16th century. It was published anonymously and its author remains unknown, but many think it was written by Hubert Languet. This book and other books on the subject advanced the view that resistance to non-Biblical actions by a king could be taken by “inferior magistrates” (contrasted with “superior magistrates” who might be supporting the wrong-headed king).

Under the two contract model, the government is not only accountable to the people in some respects, but is also accountable to God. Thus, while the government represents God, it is not vested with ALL the authority of the Almighty. God validates the government, but, at the same time, whatever the form of government, Almighty God and His Son are above that government.

Thus, Romans, Chapter 13 briefly validates the right and necessity for government to exist, to prevent evil as its justification. The Word of God states, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exit are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resist the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil,….Therefore, you must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’s sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’ ministers attending continually to this very thing.” (Ro 11: 1-3a; 5-6)

However, despite this justification for government, government leaders are nowhere exempted from practicing their leadership in a Biblical way. The authorities must also follow the two greatest commandments (Matt 22:35-40), and not sin against God’s holiness. For His grace and mercy calls upon governing officials to the same response, the same holy and repentant lifestyles, as those over whom they rule and from whom they collect taxes. In term of morals, obedience to the laws of the state, and salvation by grace through faith, the leaders are under Almighty God and accountable to Almighty God through His Son the same as everyone else.

Despite what the pathetic jurist Hugo Black said in the 1947 Supreme Court decision in Everson v. Board of Education, there is no wall of separation between church and state. Jesus Christ is Lord and every state on the face of the Earth, and every leader is accountable to him. An atheistic leader who knows no rule except that of his own will, one who is Machiavellian in behavior if not in theory, who rejects love, forgiveness, honesty, and truth the same as any citizen, who denies the true and only Deity, will go to hell the same as any private citizen no matter how low or high his or her income may be.

Jesus Christ came to bring peace with God. In the midst of our world turmoil, we must never lose sight of this truth. Are our leaders living out a holy calling or are they making decisions out of their corrupt and rotting flesh? Are they tools of the wily, sinister devil or are they standing for righteousness and truth? When the news media twists the words of public officials, and when public officials outright lie, slander, and obstruct the law which is especially prevalent among the leftwing and the Democrat Party at this time, we must never forget that they are not only accountable to the electorate, but to a just and holy God.