In the preface to the new edition of one of James Montgomery Boice’ final books, Two Cities, Two Loves: Christian Responsibility in a Crumbling Culture (P&R, 2024), his wife Linda writes that in the 1990’s, “Jim became concerned with the ‘caving in’, as he called it, of evangelicals of Reformed and non-Reformed persuasions to the increasingly secular and nonbiblical worldview that—with the pervasive presence of television—was saturating our culture.”
Since then things have culturally speaking, only become worse. It’s worth remembering that Boice was writing before the ubiquitous presence of the internet and the epochal change in relating which it has brought. As many have acknowledged, we are culturally somewhere in between Orwell’s 1984, Huxley’s Brave New World, and Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.
Arising out of his prescient concerns as the president of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals in 1996, Boice called a meeting of one hundred and twenty Christian leaders in Cambridge, Massachusetts to address the issue. The conference resulted in three significant outcomes:
First, a statement called, The Cambridge Declaration (TCD) was a produced. TCD was based upon the five solas of the Protestant Reformation, with the aim “to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life.”
Second, the book Here We Stand!: A Call From Confessing Evangelicals For A Modern Reformation (P&R, 2004) was later published. This was edited by Jim Boice and Ben Sasse, although sadly, Boice went to be with the Lord in 2000 before it was released. The book contains a number of important contributions from evangelical leaders in North America; David F. Wells, Al Mohler, Gene Edward Veith, Michael Horton, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey and Jim Boice.
Third, in 1996 Boice himself published Two Cities, Two Loves, although it never enjoyed the influence it deserved at the time. Thankfully, P&R have recently released a new edition, and the content of this particular volume by Boice is needed more than ever. Boice embodied that rare combination of being a godly, wise, faithful and courageous preacher of God’s Word. And his application of Scripture to the issues of the day remains a timeless model of responsible exegesis.
The Relationship Between Church and State
Now is not the time or place to do a proper review of the book (although this will be God willing forthcoming shortly). What I’d like to do now is stop and consider one aspect in particular which Boice addressed, and that is the relationship between what he labels as ‘God and Caesar’ (i.e. Matt. 22:21). Boice put his finger onto something which is a temptation today which is more pertinent, as well as pernicious, than it was back then.
Boice outlines that when it comes to the relationship between Church and State there are four logical options: a) God alone as an Authority b) Caesar Alone as an Authority c) The Authority of God and Caesar, but with Caesar in the Dominant Position and d) The Authority of God and Caesar, but with God in the Dominant Position.
Boice obviously argues that “the last option is the only valid one: God and Caesar, but with God in the dominant position. It was the position Jesus articulated when he said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” But it is what Boice said regarding option “C” which I think is particularly pertinent for the evangelical church today. Boice writes:
The third option is one many persons would prefer, but it is the position of cowards. If God’s authority is recognized at all, it must be supreme simply because God is supreme by definition. That is what it means to be God. So if anyone claims to obey the state before God or rather than God, while nevertheless still believing in God, it can only be because he is afraid of what Caesar might do to him.
Growing Statism
What became clear during COVID-19 was that there has been a growing political paternalism, formerly known as statism. This occurs when a large proportion of the population look to the government for deliverance from whatever problem is facing them. This became evident in a number of different ways. One of the most shocking was the Labor Party of Western Australia encouraging people to write to the Premier Mark McGowan on Father’s Day in appreciation of him being their “state dad”.
Francis Schaeffer rightly warned of the limits relating to government authority last century. Schaeffer wisely and courageously wrote:
God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous. The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.
The Good of Religious Freedom
Before continuing, it’s important to stop at this point and consider the legitimate place of religious freedom. For example, at its 2023 meeting of the General Assembly of Australia (GAA) the Presbyterian Church of Australia made the following unanimous resolution:
The Presbyterian Church of Australia supports a general freedom of religion in which all people are free to express religious convictions and lack of such convictions both privately and publicly, individually and in association with others. This recognises the dignity of all people made in God’s image and that true worship of God and faith in him cannot be coerced by human authorities.
Christ is the head of the church, and the state has no right to intrude on the doctrine, discipline or worship of the church. The state does not have the authority to enforce or direct religious beliefs or practices.
The Assembly calls on governments at all levels to protect freedom of religion as broadly as possible, including the freedom of religious institutions to pursue their mission consistent with their convictions and the freedom of individuals to express religious convictions in public discussion and the workplace.
The Assembly calls on governments to include in legislation, where appropriate, protection of genuine conscientious objection.
The Assembly encourages the Church and Nation Committee and the Moderator- General to inform the Church of threats to freedom of religion and to advocate for freedom of religion in Australia and beyond.
The above resolution is pertinent when one considers that during COVID-19 churches faced different and inconsistent regulations in each state, on matters of masking, singing, and social distancing. In some instances, this was an intrusion on the worship of the church. And as the above resolution of the 2023 GAA unambiguously asserts: “Christ is the head of the church, and the state has no right to intrude on the doctrine, discipline or worship of the church. The state does not have the authority to enforce or direct religious beliefs or practices.”
Even more egregiously, many congregations simply resolved to exclude unvaccinated people from their meetings, with some church leaders even ruling that one had to be vaccinated to be able to serve in any form of public ministry. But how is this not a violation of the resolution on religious freedom as outlined by the GAA?
Should Churches Have Complied with Everything During COVID?
During COVID-19, many state government departments—and sadly, also churches—required people to be vaccinated or lose their job or place in the congregation. But in what The Courier Mail has labelled a “bombshell” announcement, the Supreme Court recently ruled that Queensland’s mandatory vaccination orders were unlawful. As The Guardian Australia reports:
The court found the police commissioner, Katarina Carroll, failed to give proper consideration to human rights relevant to the decision to issue the vaccine mandate.
The former Department of Health director general Dr John Wakefield was unable to prove he issued the vaccine mandate under an implied term of the employment agreements for ambulance service workers.
As a result, both vaccine mandates were found by the court to be “unlawful” and to have no effect.
The court also found the directions limited the human rights of workers because they were required to undergo a medical procedure without full consent but it was reasonable in all the circumstances.
The legal ramifications of the decision could be massive and possibly open the floodgates to similar appeals in other states. But it is worth reflecting at this point—almost three years after the event—what churches in particular have to learn. In particular, did we give to Caesar what rightly belongs to God? For as Boice wisely states:
At times we must disobey. Caesar is not God. Though we must give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, we must be careful to give God what is God’s. But we need to look carefully to God to know the difference.
What Can We Learn?
It is crucial that we learn from the mistakes which were made. As followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, we should seek to preserve both the religious freedom, as well as protect the liberty of conscience, of all in the Church. No one should be discriminated against regarding his or her vaccination status. And nor for that matter, should those who decided not to be vaccinated discriminate against those who have been. For as the apostle Paul writes:
“Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.” Rom. 14:16-18
– Mark Powell