Sermon Tone Analysis

“Pilate said to [Jesus], ‘You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?’ Jesus answered him, ‘You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.

Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.’” [1]

Government is divinely charged to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good [see 1 PETER 2:14].

There is certainly room to discuss the ramifications of such a broad mandate or to argue how such a mandate should be implemented.

Nevertheless, it remains true that beyond this divine directive, if government wishes more power over the individual, it must arrogate to itself authority that has not been conferred by the Creator.

For instance, governments have no right to define morality or to coerce the conscience.

That governments do assume such authority ensures continual tension between state and church.

There would be no disagreement between students of biblical morality and political science if a fixed standard were applied to determine what is moral or ethical.

However, with the advent of modern evolutionary judicial thought standards of morality and ethics have grown pliable; consequently, they are in a constant state of flux.

Increasingly, parliaments and legislatures seek to regulate thought, doing so through redefining both moral and ethical behaviour.

As a result, conscientious Christians experience considerable tension as they endeavour to discern the boundaries of governmental authority that God has set.

Modern western governments do seek to control thought and to redefine morality.

However, in this effort, they intrude into realms over which they have no authority.

Definitions of morality and ethics are the domain of religion and not that of the state.

Ultimately, the morality of a particular society will be what is permitted by the citizenry, usually resulting either from silence of or through the consistent teaching of the churches.

Increasingly, churches in the present, liberal-minded, world are under assault.

Christians are expected to be tolerant of every form of wickedness, silently acquiescing to practises that are utterly repugnant to godly convictions and antithetical to righteousness.

Faith, according to the contemporary mindset, is a private affair that must not be allowed to colour any other aspect of life.

Churches are virtually commanded to submit their faith and practise to the approval of government bureaucrats or to the judiciary.

Modern governments have become notorious in their attempt to regulate every facet of life, intruding even into the sacred right of the individual to hold private opinions.

Society seems to have concluded during the past several decades that the state must protect the feelings of all people—save for conscientious Christians.

We are taught that we must not make any statement that may hurt the feelings of any individual that considers himself or herself to be a racial minority, or who happens to represent a “minority” religion, or who seeks to normalise moral deviance.

The state has therefore become the protector of feelings, a champion appointed to avenge hurt feelings.

From earliest days, Baptists have championed freedom of worship, espousing the ideal of a free church in a free state.

Baptists tenaciously hold to the doctrine of liberty of conscience.

We conscientiously seek to be good citizens—praying for those in authority, obeying all laws that do not violate Scriptural injunctions, and honouring those who are charged to direct affairs of government.

However, Baptists have always insisted that we have a higher law that must prevail in every aspect of life.

We received this command from the Founder of our Faith—Jesus, the Son of God.

From earliest days, those holding Baptist principles, have endured jail, have been tortured and suffered confiscation of their goods, rather than permit their conscience to be violated.

Baptists daily exemplify through their lives the reality of the words of George W. Truett, long-time pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas.

On May 16, 1920, Dr. Truett stated in an address delivered on the steps of the National Capital in Washington, D.C., “A Baptist would rise at midnight to plead for absolute religious liberty for his Catholic neighbour, and for his Jewish neighbour, and for everybody else.” [2] And a Baptist will just as quickly plead for religious liberty for his Muslim neighbour or for her atheist neighbour.

When He was betrayed, the Master was delivered to Pilate with the demand from religious leaders that He be crucified.

Arraigned before the Roman legate, the Master maintained silence.

The governor, on the other hand, blustered and sought to intimidate.

Ultimately, his feeble threat was met with firm rebuke.

Contained within Jesus’ admonishment is encouragement and instruction worthy of thoughtful consideration.

Join me, therefore, in a study of the exchange between Jesus and Pilate.

TENSIONS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE — “Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you.”

These are the words Pilate used in an attempt to compel Jesus to respond to his queries.

The Roman procurator willingly assumed authority, but failed to accept the responsibility that attends that same authority.

Few scenes in the Gospel accounts are more dramatic than the one before us now.

Jesus stands accused of sedition and blasphemy; He stands before the governor of Judea, a Roman functionary appointed by Caesar.

Pilate imagines that he sits in judgement of the man known to him as Jesus of Nazareth; but it is not the Son of God that is examined—it is the Roman legate that is on trial.

Pilate did not even know that he was being tested, but as surely as smoke rises from the fire, he was tried and found wanting.

The religious leaders that delivered Jesus to Pilate insisted that He was a threat to continued Roman rule.

Pilate initially attempted to ignore their demands, but their insistence compelled him to conduct a cursory examination.

“Are you the King of the Jews,” Pilate asked [JOHN 18:33]?

To that question, Jesus asserted that He was indeed a King, but that His “Kingdom is not from the world” [JOHN 18:36].

Pilate sought to demonstrate his power by having Jesus flogged.

Scurrilous in their ridicule of the prisoner, the soldiers lent Pilate’s orders additional weight through mockery and abuse.

Even this cruelty was insufficient to appease the bloodlust of the religious leaders.

Only crucifixion would sate their appetite for blood, and Pilate grew fearful.

In JOHN 19:8, we read “Pilate … was even more afraid.”

Ill at ease at first, the procurator grew still more alarmed; the prisoner’s calm demeanour unnerved the ruler.

Pilate desperately tried to find a reason to release the man now in his custody.

“Where are you from,” he demanded?

Scripture says that “Jesus gave him no answer” [JOHN 19:9].

With this, Pilate attempted intimidation.

In order to escape his dilemma Pilate must either coerce the prisoner or grovel to gain His assistance in freeing Him.

Thus, Pilate said to Him, “Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you” [JOHN 19:10]?

Indeed, Pilate had authority either to dismiss a charge that was not against the Roman government, or to prosecute that charge.

Whatever choice he made, he was nevertheless responsible to do what was right.

There seems always to be a disquieting tendency for governments, through their representatives, to assume authority they were never given, to usurp responsibility even over people’s thoughts and ideas.

Perhaps this intrusion grows out of governmental regulation of conduct—some of which is undoubtedly legitimate, though much of such regulation borders on what can only be classified as intrusive and unnecessary.

As mentioned in the opening words of this particular message, government is charged “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” [1 PETER 2:14].

Within that mandate, censure of certain activities will be necessary.

Murder is wrong and must be punished.

Theft is wrong and must be punished.

Vandalism and libel are wrong, and those who commit such wrongs must be held accountable.

To fail to do so is to invite vigilantism, as individuals within society mete out their own punishment of evildoers, which actions can only lead to anarchy.

However, legislators have a way of multiplying laws and regulations; and government tends to exert ever-greater efforts to regulate behaviour.

Few of us would argue that speed laws or traffic direction laws are overly intrusive; but it is without question that the basis for mandatory seatbelt laws and helmet laws for bicycles has less to do with punishing evil than it has to do with mitigating the social costs absorbed by our socialised medical system when unrestrained drivers are injured or when helmetless motorcyclists are thrown from their bikes.

The latter laws may be sensible to obey, and they may even be reasonable, but they are impossible to support as necessary extensions of the divine mandate given to government.

Perhaps those particular laws are justifiable in your mind; but one must question how laws that regulate to whom a farmer may sell his crop serve as praise for doing good.

Likewise, it is difficult to justify a law that censures preaching which condemns behaviour that is clearly denounced in the Bible.

Unless the legislature accroaches to itself the ability to define good and evil, such laws must be seen as illicit and even as unrighteous.

However, attempting to redefine what is good and what is evil opens those providing the new definition to the disapproval of Scripture.

Isaiah warns,

“Woe to those who call evil good

and good evil,

who put darkness for light

and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet

and sweet for bitter!”

[ISAIAH 5:20]

Throughout the United States, reports multiply detailing the creation of laws requiring Catholic institutions to provide contraceptive services and “morning after” pills to female employees, of laws attempting to compel religious hospitals to perform abortions and to provide abortion training, and of the use of anti-racketeering laws to intimidate right-to-life demonstrators through imposing harsh punishments for opposing abortion services.

[3]

A few years ago in Massachusetts we witnessed an egregious intrusion of the state into the precincts of church doctrine.

After 103 years of providing adoption services to the city of Boston, Catholic Charities were no longer permitted to serve the community.

Since 1977 Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of Boston had provided adoption services that primarily placed children with severe emotional and physical needs on behalf of the state.

During the 1980s and 90s, 720 children were placed in permanent homes through adoption.

The agency provided pre-adoptive training, birth parent counselling, home studies, infant adoption, special needs adoption and post placement assessment.

Those services were provided, for the most part, at little expense to the state.

In fiscal year 2005, Catholic Charities received approximately $1 million in reimbursements from the Massachusetts Department of Social Services for its adoption-related work, but the charity provided an additional $36 million from its own funds for a broad variety of services including the adoptions.[4]

Catholic Charities of Boston were obeying Vatican doctrine that sees placement of children in the homes of same-sex couples as “gravely immoral” when they decided that they could not conscientiously permit adoption by same-sex couples.

As result of their decision to obey church doctrine, the state no longer permitted them to perform their adoptive work.

Despite the fact that over 31% of the special needs children adopted in Massachusetts were adopted through Catholic Charities, the state felt it had a compelling interest to force the agency to jettison Catholic doctrine in favour of a new doctrine written by legislators at the behest of sodomite and lesbian activists.

It is difficult to see this as anything other than an attempt by power-mad politicians and governmental functionaries to bring the Catholic Church to heel.

A similar conflict arose when the City of San Francisco sought to bully Catholic Charities into openly agreeing that they would place children into the homes of homosexual couples despite the violation of Catholic doctrine.

The charity, citing papal doctrine, held that placing children into such environments was potentially harmful to the children and that such action would not be conductive to their full human development.

Though the religious charity endeavoured to find a resolution to the impasse, the city council maintained its right to compel compliance with their demands.