# Rom 13:7 "Honor"



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

Rom 13:7 Then give to all their dues: to the one due tax, the tax; to the one due tribute, the tribute; to the one due fear, the fear; to the one due honor, the honor. 

Would it be a break in the RPW to bring special 'honor' to civil leaders in the Lords day worship service?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 3, 2005)

What honor do you believe a politician is due? Do you mean like honor as in honor your Father and Mother? Or do you mean giving them special notice for the work they do?

As far as I am concerned all ground is level at the foot of the Cross. The LORD, the minister, and the Word of the Lord, should be the focus at the assembly. Worship is intended to focus on and praise to God, not man. The Politician can recieve his honor at the greeting door. In my humble opinion

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 3, 2005)

My first inclination is to say that it would be a violation of the RPW. Many things are lawful and necessary other times, but not permissible during public worship.

That being said, our church has a prayer of confession, and a prayer of thanksgiving & supplication. If one were to include the civil authorities in that prayer of thanksgiving, I would not consider that a violation...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

Let me give you a hypothetical:
Would you think of it as a break in the RPW if your church specifically was honoring and _enumerating_ local city officials on the Lords day?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 3, 2005)

Are you making mention of a situation like this?

We would like to give a welcome to our visitors and to Congressman so and so for coming to worship with us this morning. 

Aye?

I don't see a problem with this.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Are you making mention of a situation like this?
> 
> We would like to give a welcome to our visitors and to Congressman so and so for coming to worship with us this morning.
> ...



Randy,
I specifically said, _enumerating_ and _honoring_. This means, naming them one by one, and then (even) inviting them up to the pulpit to speak.

Welcoming them is fine. What I am concerned about are churches that take it a step further and include them in the worship service.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 3, 2005)

Sorry Scott.

I didn't know what you meant by enumerating and honoring. I didn't realize it meant to bring them up and to let them speak.

Answer..... *NO WAY!*

Where did you see that happen?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Sorry Scott.
> 
> I didn't know what you meant by enumerating and honoring. I didn't realize it meant to bring them up and to let them speak.
> ...



No need to apologize Randy. Sorry if I came across curt. I'm just trying to pick everyone's brain as I was meditating upon this passage. In light of honoring our civil leaders, would it be a break in the RPW to honor them on the Lords day and in the worship service........In other words, I understand we are to honor them, however, wouldn't it nbe dishonoring to God to honor them in a worship service where we are supoosed to lift Christ?


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Your thinking is right on here Scott. We shouldn't give the pulpit over to "honor" the magistrate this way. You have reason to be concerned In my humble opinion.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

jeff, randy,
When I say _speak_, I don't mean to imply that these officials are teaching or preaching, but speaking in regards to civil things. Is this clearer?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2005)

The short answer is, "Of course you may *NOT* do such honor to men in a place and time that is wholly and only the Lord God's."

1 Cor. 11:7, 10


> For a man indeed ought not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.... For this reason the woman ought to have the symbol of authority on her head.


It is not important to discuss here what precisely is meant by "covering" or "symbol of authority" (hair, scarf/hat, something else). That is important, but not here. The point is this: *ALL* glory in the public worship of God should be revelatory of him and him alone. Not an ounce of it should be expended _or even exposed_ (as the passage plainly states) in his worship.

James 2:2-3


> For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you should pay attention to the one wearing fine clothes and say to him, "You sit here in a good place," and say to the poor man, "You stand there," or, "Sit here at my footstool," have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?


Here is a similar chance for special note to be taken of someone of prominence--is he to be honored? Not so! Such special treatment not only detracts from God's glory, it also detracts from the respect and honor of the least member of the kingdom present. As James says elsewhere


> Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, but the rich in his humiliation.


(1:9-10)


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> jeff, randy,
> When I say _speak_, I don't mean to imply that these officials are teaching or preaching, but speaking in regards to civil things. Is this clearer?



Yes Scott, I understand, but just because they are talking about civil things does not justify their actions. The pulpit is for lifting up Christ and petitions to the Father, but not for lifting up the name of men.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 3, 2005)

They can address civil matters on other days. Not on the LORD's Day. I may be a bit tight here but I believe the Sanctuary is meant for Holy business. God's sanctuary is a place to discern and regain our hope. It is a place we see the Holy One and His ways as Asaph did.

(Psa 73:16,17)
When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me;
Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.

I would prefer to keep the Sanctuary as a place where God's truth is spoken about all matters. It is a place where the Government should come to learn how it should behave and act with wisdom. Not the other way around.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Would it be a break in the RPW to bring special 'honor' to civil leaders in the Lords day worship service?



We should give them a special ceremony for their faithfulness to the Constitution of the United States and their respective States, and their principled defense not only of the rule of law but also for the rights of individual citizens and the Bill of Rights, for operating within the scope and lawful authority that the Constitution delegates them, and for always playing by the rules and not violating the rights of the citizen nor subjecting them to onerous taxation since they have carefully avoided erecting "multitude of new offices, and [sending] hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance," as Jefferson said in the Declaration.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



<sits in stunned silence</> Wow


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rom 13:7 Then give to all their dues: to the one due tax, the tax; to the one due tribute, the tribute; to the one due fear, the fear; to the one due honor, the honor.
> 
> Would it be a break in the RPW to bring special 'honor' to civil leaders in the Lords day worship service?



No one should be standing behind the pulpit unless they are a lawfully ordained man. The "music leader", or "Sunday School teacher" or "Mayor of the City" has no place in a God-ordained position. To slight that is to slight God's authority. Its destructive to the RPW.

Belgic Confession says, "Therefore every one must take heed *not to intrude himself by improper means*, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him; that he may have testimony of his calling, and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Scott,
Would you equate modern civic leader with Uzziah, both of them officers of the state seeking more than their God-ordained role allows them?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Never thought about that Jacob; I was more concerned with how the church _encourages_ it and ultimately becomes part of the problem, even to the extennt of compounding the unregenerate civil leader's sin.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 4, 2005)

I have always felt that politicians who enter the pulpit when visiting churches to conduct essentially political rallies are defiling God's temple. 

I think the Uzziah reference is most appropos.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 23:



> III. *The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: (e)* yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.(f) For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(g)
> 
> (e) *II Chron. 26:18* with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; I Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11, 12; I Cor. 4:1, 2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.
> (f) Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5, 6, 12; I Kings 18:4; I Chron. 13:1 to 9; II Kings 23:1 to 26; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13.
> (g) II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29 and 30; Matt. 2:4, 5.



On the other hand, we ought to pray for our magistrates, even by name. 

See the Directory for Publick Worship for an example of this:



> To pray for all in authority, especially for the King's Majesty; that God would make him rich in blessings, both in his person and government; establish his throne in religion and righteousness, save him from evil counsel, and make him a blessed and glorious instrument for the conservation and propagation of the gospel, for the encouragement and protection of them that do well, the terror of all that do evil, and the great good of the whole church, and of all his kingdoms; for the conversion of the Queen, the religious education of the Prince, and the rest of the royal seed; for the comforting of the afflicted Queen of Bohemia, sister to our Sovereign; and for the restitution and establishment of the illustrious Prince Charles, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, to all his dominions and dignities; for a blessing upon the High Court of Parliament, (when sitting in any of these kingdoms respectively,) the nobility, the subordinate judges and magistrates, the gentry, and all the commonality; for all pastors and teachers, that God would fill them with his Spirit, make them exemplarily holy, sober, just, peaceable, and gracious in their lives; sound, faithful, and powerful in their ministry; and follow all their labours with abundance of success and blessing; and give unto all his people pastors according to his own heart; for the universities, and all schools and religious seminaries of church and commonwealth, that they may flourish more and more in learning and piety; for the particular city or congregation, that God would pour out a blessing upon the ministry of the word, sacraments, and discipline, upon the civil government, and all the several families and persons therein; for mercy to the afflicted under any inward or outward distress; for seasonable weather, and fruitful seasons, as the time may require; for averting the judgments that we either feel or fear, or are liable unto as famine, pestilence, the sword, and such like.



Incidentally, St. John's Episcopal Church next to the White House (one block from where I work) is where almost all US Presidents have gone regularly or periodically to worship (it's convenient for Presidents and the Secret Service) has a plaque honoring the Huguenot heritage of many US Presidents.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 1, 2005)

I think Christian leaders would do well to study Abraham Kuyper's concept of sphere sovereignty for the ecclesiastical and civil authorities which is rooted in sound exegesis of the Scriptures.

The problem with modern liberalism is that it blurs the lines between the state and society like the Greek polis of antiquity, and modern statist liberals want things secularized. Evangelical Christians in sort of an overreaction lambast the notion of _separation of church and state_ and fall into trap set for them in their arguments, as if we're to desire a fusion of church and state.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 1, 2005)

Frankly I have always been amazed that God has had the forbearance not to immediately strike down politicians, Democrat or Republican, who deign to stand in the pulpit and profane the Word of God by their politicking. 

Todd


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 1, 2005)




----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 1, 2005)

Some pastors politic for them, and get out of line as well. The pastor who tossed out his Democrats urging them to "repent" and support George W. Bush was out of line. If he done his homework-- he would see the GOP--lauded as _God's Own Party_ has a few problems of there own-- which is why Christian pastors need to quit marrying one's status as a Republican with being a good Christian... Besides, the party ostensibly lauding "religious virtue," "fiscal conservatism," and "limited government" can only speak such platitudes in the most hypocritical and Orwellian terms-- when judged in aggregate.

I do think Christians should be on guard to protect our religious freedoms and the sanctity of life-- it is part of being salt and light. But America almost has a civil religion bordering on idolatry and were too politicized. Though, I agree with the first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay who said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Not choosing moral leaders and divorcing personal character and public character are asinine. Having said that-- being in the GOP doesn't automatically equal a moral Christian leader.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 1, 2005)

James 2 came to mind immediately upon starting to read this thread.

Worship is a focus on God, not men. And no man takes presidence over God, no matter who he is or what other honor he is due.

Phillip


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> James 2 came to mind immediately upon starting to read this thread.
> 
> Worship is a focus on God, not men. And no man takes presidence over God, no matter who he is or what other honor he is due.
> ...


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 1, 2005)

This is possibly getting away with the aspects of this discussion, but I think the fact that the concept of politicians speaking in the pulpit has been roundly booed by all alike, says we can focus on other facets of the issue... 

Like Pastor Way I am reminded of James's warning against giving deference to the rich over the poor. In this case, what one does in giving the pulpit over to the politician, or sitting him in the front row, or in any way acknowledging that he is anything different than a plain ol' sinner like the rest, is act in defiance of the prohibition of preferences James speaks of. What is the reason the rich, in James's letter, was given preferential treatment? The clear inference, I believe, is the desire for favors of some kind from the rich (which James trounces, later, when he calls them to remember that it is the *rich* who were dragging them into court). 

When preference is given to the politician, isn't *influence* what is sought after? Again, we shame the common man if preferences are given to the politician, the famous, or whomever. As one has already said in this thread - the gate is the same size for all, and the measure of men before the Throne has nothing to do with political status or otherwise. All are in desperate need of Christ.


----------

