Speaking Evil of Dignities - Glenn Conjurske
Speaking Evil of Dignities
by Glenn Conjurske
One of the evil fruits of democracy is that it seems to give every man license to abuse his rulers. This is the American way. All who hold office are considered a fair target for the reproaches of every arm-chair philosopher, and the lampoons of every would-be comedian. And it seems that this spirit is equally rife in the church as it is in the world. Indeed, there are a good many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who seem to suppose that they have a peculiar calling to hold up their rulers to reproach and ridicule. But all of this is directly against the Scriptures. It is of apostate hypocrites and filthy dreamers, who walk after the flesh and foam out their own shame, that Jude speaks when he says, “these . . . despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.” (Jude 8). And shall the disciples of the meek and lowly Christ have part with these?
Dignities are dignitaries. They are judges and legislators. It is of these that Scripture says, “There is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” (Rom. 13:1-2). Whoever speaks evil of dignities, then, speaks evil of the ordinance of God.
And whence comes this evil speaking? It is the fruit of pride. Being puffed up with their own abilities or their own importance, men “despise dominion,” and therefore “speak evil of dignities.” They despise those who are above them. Every man can rule the country better than the President—-though he cannot rule his own house, his own spirit, or his own tongue. But next, it is the fruit of lust. Americans are so addicted to what they call liberty, that they “despise dominion”—-despise the institution which curtails their liberty—-and so “speak evil of dignities.”
But observe, we do not hold it to be necessarily evil to speak the truth concerning dignities, provided this is done with a proper spirit, and for a proper purpose. There is a good deal of this in the Bible—-particularly in the Old Testament. There is a good deal less of it in the New Testament. We are “pilgrims and strangers on the earth,” whose “citizenship is in heaven,” and we have a good deal less occasion than Israel had to have anything at all to say of the rulers of this world. Peter and Paul suffered at the hands of this world’s dignities, but their epistles do not ring with reproaches against them. They have little to say about them. They admonish us to submit to them, and that is all. We read nothing at all of their immoral lives, their evil policies, or their blatant injustice in robbing the Christians of their God-given and constitutional rights. Yet such is the content of a good many Fundamentalist papers today. And the worst of it is the reproachful tone in which much of it is written. I just received in the mail a little Independent Baptist paper called the “Bible Baptist Blueprint,” in which the editor, DeWayne Austin (Hamilton, Ohio), asks his readers to pray that “Slick Willie Clinton” will lose the next election. What is the purpose of such disrespectful language? Is this rendering honor to whom honor is due? Is not this speaking evil of dignities? I counsel brother Austin and all Fundamentalists to lay aside such disrespectful talk. It brings much more dishonor upon the church of God than it can upon President Clinton.
Moreover, to speak reproachfully of rulers is directly against the commands of God. “Render…honour to whom honour” is due, says Paul. (Rom. 13:7). “Fear God. Honour the king,” says Peter. (I Pet. 2:17). Is not this plain enough? How is it that so many Fundamentalists seem to think that they have a peculiar commission to dishonor the king? This is the spirit of pride, the spirit of the world, and it has no business in the church of God.
But again, I do not believe that “speaking evil of dignities” consists merely in speaking the truth concerning them, if done in a good spirit and for a good reason. Yet observe, while it may be a fairly easy thing for men to judge whether they speak with a good spirit, it may be more difficult to judge what is a good purpose. I cannot admit for a moment that the political involvement of modern Fundamentalism constitutes a good purpose. That political involvement itself is a wide departure from the Christianity of the New Testament, and I observe that one of its most common fruits is a departure from the spirit of Christ and the spirit of the gospel. When Christians become involved in any degree in political activities, it becomes a seeming impossibility for them to maintain a Christian spirit. Instead of suffering for righteousness, with Christ and his apostles, they are found standing for their “rights,” with the ungodly world. Instead of blessing and winning, they are found reproaching and calling down fire. Instead of honoring dignities, they are found speaking evil of them. All of this is the legitimate fruit of Fundamentalism’s forgetting its heavenly calling, losing sight of the true character, course, and end of the world, abdicating its place of separation, making itself at home on the earth, and so adopting in essence the modernists’ agenda, “to make the world a better place in which to live.” They set themselves to “save America”—-not to save the souls of the people, but to save the politics of the country from corruption, to save the economy of the nation from collapse, to save the morals of the nation from degeneracy. All of this, of course, leads them directly to an overt opposition to “the powers that be,” and that in turn leads directly to “speaking evil of dignities.”
It leads also to a spirit of antagonism between themselves and the souls for whom Christ died, whom we are commissioned to win. That spirit of antagonism, I am well aware, will exist so long as we stand for the truth and the gospel, but it remains a fact that gentle manners and respectful speech may tend greatly to soften that spirit of antagonism, and open men’s ears to hear the gospel which we preach, while reproachful speaking and a contemptuous spirit only augment that antagonism—-and thus do those who crusade to “save America” actually contribute to destroy the lost souls which make it up. Paul never spoke a word about saving the Roman Empire—-no, nor of saving Israel, either, though he surely labored to save Israelites, as well as Romans—-and neither did he go about speaking evil of their rulers.
When Paul was persecuted, he yet addressed his judge as “most noble Festus” (Acts 26:25), thus rendering honor to whom honor was due. Yet on another occasion he exposed the hypocrisy of the high priest, saying, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” (Acts 23:3). Yet when “they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?” Paul answered, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” Does not this plainly imply that Paul would not have so spoken if he had known who it was to whom he was speaking? And yet I note that Paul’s strong language was spoken to the judge, as a rebuke, and not about him, as a reproach. I will not contend that Paul would not have administered that rebuke if he had known it was the high priest to whom he spoke, yet I suppose he might have softened his language.
Fundamental preachers love to refer to David’s refusing to lift up his hand against the Lord’s anointed, so long as it is plainly understood that “the Lord’s anointed” is the Fundamental preacher. Yet many of these same preachers think nothing at all of lifting up their tongues and their pens against the “dignities” which God has set over them. Brethren, these things ought not so to be.
I, of course, am well aware that many—-no doubt most—-of the rulers of the world are in fact evil men. Their morals are corrupt, and their policies destructive. But are they worse than Saul, whose passion was to seek the life of the Lord’s chosen David? Are they worse than the Roman emperors, whom Peter and Paul admonish us to honor? But I must inquire yet further, Are they worse than the devil? You will recall that “Michael the archangel…durst not bring against HIM a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” (Jude 9). Michael—-not a corrupt sinner such as we are, but Michael, who never did a wicked deed, nor ever spoke an impure word, nor thought an evil thought—-Michael, whose name is “who is like God”—-the archangel—-not some weak and insignificant creature of the dust such as we are, but the archangel, the ruler of the mighty hosts of heaven—-Michael dared not to bring a railing accusation against the devil—-against the lowest of the low, the enemy of God, the father of lies, the deceiver of the whole world, the corrupter of the morals of the whole race, the destroyer of the souls of all men. Against this fiend of fiends Michael DARED NOT to bring a railing accusation. What business, then, have we to speak evil of our fellow-sinners, who have the rule over us? Is this a light thing, to glibly tread where an archangel will not dare to set his foot?
But Jude continues, “but these speak evil of those things which they know not.” (Jude 10). “These speak evil of dignities.” (Jude 8). Shall we have part with these?
Glenn Conjurske