Archive for the ‘Christians and Government’ Category

Put bluntly, America is becoming more secular. Albert Mohler identifies the problem: “Recent studies have indicated that the single greatest predictor of voting patterns is the frequency of church attendance. Far fewer Americans now attend church, and a recent study indicated that fully 20% of all Americans identify with no religious preference at all. The secularizing of the electorate will have monumental consequences.”

How are Believers to Respond? 

1. Do Evangelism, not Politics (Wayne Grudem gives the first two points)

John MacArthur advocates a version of this view: “The believer’s political involvement should never displace the priority of preaching and teaching the gospel because the morality and righteousness that God seeks is the result of salvation and sanctification” (Why Government Can’t Save You: An Alternative to Political Activism, page 8).

MacArthur is not saying no involvement, but the believer’s participation in government is not as important as spreading the gospel.

MacArthur, however, makes an even stronger statement: “God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation and court rulings that advance a scriptural point of view” (Why Government Can’t Save You, page 130). My question is, if the Congress had a chance to reverse Roe v Wade, should Christians try to influence their Congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment to end the murder of unborn babies?

2. Do Politics, Not Evangelism

This is the liberal view of the Social Gospel and Liberation theology. This view is a works for salvation view that advocates saving the planet but not saving individual sinners. This view advocates delivering all the marginalized minorities through redistribution of wealth by taxing more and more the top income makers. Some of these believe it is the responsibility of the church to bring in the kingdom and once society has been totally reformed, Christ will return. Some of these are called Christian Reconstructionists.

This is contrary to Scripture. “In the last days perilous times shall come.” “The love of many will wax worse.” Only Jesus can establish His kingdom.

3. Do Evangelism and Politics

Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” (Matthew 22:18). Jesus replied, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (22:21). This was a revolutionary statement.

Jesus indicated there are two separate spheres of influences in people’s lives. One of government and one of religion. This was a huge change from the OT which was a theocracy where the entire nation was considered the people of God and God’s law regulated every area of life. There was no separation of religion and state in the OT. The political leader of the nation was also the spiritual leader of the nation. There was no freedom of religion. There was only one acceptable religion. This is not the case today as Jesus’ statement showed.

We believers are citizens of America and we have certain responsibilities to our government. We pay taxes over which the government has control and authority. We are also citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20) and we have certain responsibilities to God over which the government has no control. Government can expect us to keep zoning laws for the public safety of our people. But if government starts telling believers what to believe and how to worship then as Peter said, “We ought to obey God and not man.” The first amendment reflects this truth: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What are the responsibilities of Believers in regard to Government?

1. Christians can Influence those in Government

Wayne Grudem lists many examples of Christians positively and significantly influencing government: “Christians influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire in AD 374; outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died in AD 404….In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and the slavery itself throughout the British Empire in 1840” (Politics: According to the Bible, pages 49-50).

Daniel rebuked King Nebuchadnezzar in 4:27. Jeremiah counseled believers in Babylon to “seek the welfare of the city” in 29:7. Joseph was second only to Pharaoh in Egypt and influenced the decision making. Moses boldly commanded Pharaoh in Egypt “Let my people go” in Ex. 8:1. John the Baptist rebuked Herod in Luke 3:18-20. Paul preached to Roman governor Felix in Acts 24:24-25.

2. Christians can pray for those in Government (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Paul teaches churches the responsibility to pray for political leaders from the president (“king”) on down. Paul did not mean we are pray just for presidents we like or voted into office. Who were the political leaders in Paul’s life? Felix and Festus the Roman governors. The Roman Emperor was Nero who martyred believers. Then Paul gives us the reason for praying for our political leaders. We should pray for our political leaders so “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” But hasn’t the church flourished under severe persecution? Did not the church decline spiritually when Constantine ended persecution against the church? Is not the church exploding in Communist China? The answer to all of these questions is “yes” and yet Paul exhorted believers to pray for their political leaders so that we wont have to be persecuted.

The reason why Paul wanted believers to pray for their political leaders was they could more easily give out the Gospel. Listen to this important point made by Paul in verses 3-6: “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

E. V. Hill, the pastor of Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles who once served as a ward leader for the Democratic party. Hill’s assignment was to get out the vote for the Democratic candidates, and his chief strategy for doing this was to have a block captain for each block of his ward. On election day, the block captains were to contact each resident of their blocks to make sure they voted. When Hill came to Los Angeles and began pastoring the church, he was convicted by the thought, that if he did this for the Democrats, why shouldn’t he do it for God; why not have a Christian block captain for every block of Los Angeles? It was not as absurd as it sounded.

In E. V. Hill’s area of the city, south central Los Angeles, the number of city blocks was 3,100. That became the mission of this church. Church members moved into a block for this very purpose. The church adopted an attitude that they existed for the sake of the gospel.

Hill tells of a funny thing that happened on one occasion. One man had been very put off by the block captain where he lived. She was always inviting him to church and other meetings of the church – always friendly, but persistent. He decided to move. In fact, he decided to move to the other side of Los Angeles. The truck came. He loaded up his possessions. His block captain came out to say goodbye. The truck started off. But as soon as he was gone, the block captain went back into her house, got out the directory of the Mount Zion block captains, found the person in charge of the block to which her offended neighbor was moving, and when he got to his new area, there was the new block community captain standing on the street in front of his new home to welcome him and invite him to church. His comment was classic; he said, “My God, they’re everywhere” (Stephen Davey sermon on Romans 13).

Kevin Bauder wrote this article entitled Churches, Pastors, and Politics on July 2, 2012 for Baptist Bulletin. I thought this was helpful for churches and pastors in a presidential election year.

Throughout their history, Baptists have been strongly committed to the separation of church and state. At the same time, they have supported the rightness of the individual Christian’s involvement in governmental affairs. Their support has been more than theoretical: Baptists have often served in the military or held public office. Many Baptists think that voting for the correct political candidates is almost a moral obligation. Yet this willingness to become involved in public affair raises potential problems for Baptists, who must decide what boundaries are appropriate for political involvement by individual Christians, for Christian leaders, and for Christian churches.

The Mission of the Church

For Baptists seeking to understand their relationship to the state, a solid understanding of the church’s mission is foundational. Like some other Christians, Baptists typically distinguish the mission of the church as the church from the obligations of Christians as private individuals. They have often defined the mission of the church by appealing to the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19, 20). In this text, the risen Lord Jesus commanded His disciples to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them to observe all the things that He has commanded. If these verses can be rightly applied to the church (as most Baptists think they can), then the mission of the church is decidedly spiritual.

Another Biblical text that is important for understanding the mission of the church is Ephesians 4:11–16. In this text, the apostle Paul articulates four tests that can be used to determine the health and success of a church (Eph. 4:13). These tests include unity of the faith, unity of the full knowledge of the Son of God, mature spiritual manhood, and conformity to the full character of Christ. Since these tests define church success, they also define the church’s mission. Once again, the church’s mission is spiritual.

The New Testament assigns no political mission to the church. Nowhere is the church asked to reform civilization or to capture the social order. Nowhere is it given the job of dominating the political process. The church as the church has no political responsibility.

The church does, however, bear a moral responsibility to the world at large (Eph. 5:3–14). The apostle Paul commanded churches not to participate in the works of darkness, but to reprove them (v. 11). These works include sexual immorality, impurity, greed, filthy behavior, foolish speech, and coarse joking (vv. 3–5). Whether through conduct or direct confrontation, Christians are obligated to let the world know what God thinks of such behaviors. God uses this exposure to bring conviction of sin to worldly people and to prepare the way for the proclamation of the gospel (v. 13).

The ministry of exposing the works of darkness may be similar to the phenomenon that Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:24 and 25. There he pointed out that unbelievers may be brought under conviction of sin by hearing prophecies in the church. This occurs, he said, when the secrets of their hearts are made obvious so that they feel themselves convicted and called into account.

The gift of prophecy is no longer being given within the church, but the duty to expose and even reprove sin remains. Part of this exposure certainly depends upon Christians living their lives differently from the unsaved around them. Christians must not participate in the works of darkness. Part of this exposure may also involve deliberate verbal rebukes and challenges. Specifically, the ministry of church leaders involves an element of reproving, rebuking, and exhorting—and they are to persevere in this ministry whether it seems to be welcome or even effective (2 Tim. 4:1–5).

In sum, the mission of the church is spiritual in nature. It centers upon the proclamation of the gospel, which is clearly an element in making disciples. It involves observing the ordinances and teaching believers. But it also includes proclamation of all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27), including the exposure of those works that God considers sinful.

Thus, while the church is not called to a political mission, it is called to a moral mission. Sometimes unsaved people prefer wickedness to morality. Sometimes they write laws to protect their immoral conduct. Sometimes politicians are willing to curry favor by passing immoral laws. Under such circumstances, the church’s ministry of moral reproof will certainly run afoul of powerful political enemies. When that happens, the church must not be intimidated into abandoning its proclamation of God’s displeasure with the works of darkness. Churches and pastors must continue to treat the ministry of exposure and reproof as part of their mission. Preaching morality is not preaching politics, even when morality is being undermined within the political sphere. The church as a church may and should rebuke governors and oppose laws that are at odds with true Biblical morality.

Christian Political Responsibility

The prophet Daniel provides an example of a man of God who served within the government of unbelieving Gentile kings. Many lessons can be drawn from the nature of his service, but one in particular stands out—God judges kings, even unbelieving kings of pagan nations. When Nebuchadnezzar became proud and tried to claim credit for his own accomplishments, God broke his pride by reducing him to insanity (Dan. 4). When Belshazzar in his arrogance defiled the vessels from the temple, God immediately pronounced and executed judgment (Dan. 5). God holds kings accountable for their actions whether they are believers or not.

The obligations of Christian citizens will vary depending upon the nature of the societies within which they find themselves. Believers living under repressive and authoritarian governments may have little opportunity to influence the political process. The Western democracies, however, are constructed around the notions of limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the popular election of officials. Western governments are bound by constitutions and are ultimately answerable to their citizens. This complex of political arrangements means that average citizens exert a direct and substantial influence over national policy. In these nations, votes matter because ordinary citizens, working together, have the power to reshape the entire national direction. Such citizens are not merely the ruled, but also the ultimate rulers.

If God held kings accountable in Biblical times, then He certainly must hold presidents, prime ministers, parliaments, congresses, and courts accountable today. More than that, he must hold individual citizens responsible to execute their political responsibilities rightly, for in the long run, officials can govern only as the people allow. Even the unsaved are accountable, but Christians, who ought to understand God’s design for nations, have a special responsibility. Even if they are a minority, they must use their influence within the public square to move their government as far as possible toward just policies—and that means policies that are just as God understands justice.

How should Christians influence their government? The first and most obvious way is through the proclamation of the gospel. The gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16). The gospel transforms those who receive it, altering their identity and progressively remaking them in the image of Christ (2 Cor. 5:16–21; Col. 3:8–17). This transformation affects not only the inner life of believers, but also their social relationships (Col. 3:18–25). When the gospel begins to transform enough people within a single society, the society itself will necessarily be altered.

Preaching the gospel is the single most important way in which Christians can influence the civil order, but it is not the only way. Part of the Christian mission involves exposing and even reproving the works of darkness (Eph. 5:3–17). This ministry is not merely the business of the church, but also of individual Christians. Whether through word or deed, Christians have a responsibility to remind the unsaved world that certain ways of living are futile and destructive.

Some ministry of exposure and reproof must precede effective efforts at legislation. In Western societies, laws ultimately depend for their enforcement upon the consensus of the governed. A law that is held up to contempt will eventually be overturned, and those who try to maintain or enforce it will be viewed as oppressors. If they intend to influence society, individual Christians must capture hearts and imaginations as well as legislatures and courts. Moral reality has been worked into the very nature of the created order. Certain patterns of conduct will inevitably produce disastrous consequences for the society that tolerates or encourages them. As citizens, Christian individuals have a duty to point out these consequences and the behaviors that lead to them, showing people the connections and persuading them of the necessity of civil order in these areas.

Beginning with the United States, the Western democracies have chosen a form of order in which government is genuinely “of the people.” Consequently, to some extent, every citizen is a ruler. Those who rule cannot escape their duty by simply choosing not to pay attention to their obligations. In other words, in those nations that are governed by participation of the populace, Christians have a duty to use their voice and influence. Because they bear some responsibility for public affairs, they have a duty to seek public justice.

What can Christians do? At the least, they should refuse to support any unjust policy, even (and perhaps especially) when the policy seems financially advantageous. Second, they should consistently exercise their vote—which is not necessarily the same as voting. If no suitable candidate is available, Christians may sometimes choose not to vote, but refusing to vote should be a choice and not mere negligence. Third, many should become involved in the political process by attending their local precinct caucuses. Fourth, some might join the campaign staff of a particularly desirable candidate. Fifth, some may even choose to run for public office. Baptists believe that these are all legitimate areas of Christian involvement.

Often, questions are raised about whether pastors should become active in politics. Such questions may lead to different answers depending on the circumstances. On the one hand, pastors are also citizens and bear the responsibilities of citizens. They are not Scripturally forbidden from voting, campaigning, or even holding office. On the other hand, a couple of warnings should be issued about pastors and politics.

The first and most obvious is that pastors bear a greater responsibility than temporal government. They lead the church of God. This leadership places the care of souls upon their shoulders. They must not allow temporal concerns to blur their focus or diminish their effectiveness as shepherds of God’s flock.

Second, when pastors speak to political questions, they must do so as citizens and not as pastors. They must not carry questions of mere politics into their pulpits or ministries. Nor may they attempt to leverage their pastoral prestige into political influence. The fact that a man is a pastor gives him no right whatever to be heard on merely political issues. If pastors try to convert their pastoral authority into political prestige, they may gain a brief increase in civic influence, but they will also dilute the authority of their office, for a pastor as a pastor possesses only the authority to explain and apply the Word of God. The moment he begins to exploit his pastoral influence for the purpose of political persuasion, he demeans the Scriptures and damages the true authority of his office.

Of course, pastors have a perfect right and even a duty to address moral questions, even when those questions also happen to be political. Moral instruction is certainly under a pastor’s purview, and it is a necessity if the members of his flock are to understand their civic responsibilities. The moral preparation of God’s people may be a pastor’s single greatest contribution to their civil effectiveness.

Kevin Bauder (DMin, Trinity Evangelical School; PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is research professor of systematic theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Plymouth, Minn. This article is an excerpt from RBP’s Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order, which will soon be available from Regular Baptist Books.

Before we seek to correct the justification of the murder of abortion doctors like George Tiller by referencing Deitrick Bonhoeffer’s plot to murder Adolf Hilter, we must remember our responsibilities to God ordained human government.

The first responsibility is to obey government as long as government does not try to force the believer to disobey God.

This principle is laid out by Paul in Romans 13:1-4.  To disobey is sin against God who created human government in Genesis 9:6. We also obey because government was created by God to protect the good (13:3-4a). The good are protected by capital punishment (13:4b). The institution of human government is transcultural and transdispensational and must be obeyed to this day.

The second responsibility is to pay taxes (13:5-7).

Jesus lived in a day of over taxation (as illustrated by the conversion of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:8) and yet Jesus still commanded “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

The third responsibility is to pray for our governmental officials (1Timothy 2:1-3).

Another responsibility of the believer is to confront the sins of governmental leaders as practiced by John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-18).

There is, however, a tension between being citizens of two countries with two kings we are to obey: Heaven (Philippians 3:20) and American (Romans 13:1-7).

The God or King of Heaven says life is sacred (Psalm 139:13-18; Jeremiah 1:5; and Galatians 1:15) and murder is sin and should be punished by death (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:4) yet our human government says abortion or the murder of the pre-born is legal.

Some pro-lifers justify the murder of abortion doctors by appealing to Deitrich Bonhoeffer.

Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor in Germany during World War II and was part of the Anti-Nazi Confessing Church that conspired to murder Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer came to this conclusion only after great struggle. He opposed Hitler’s murder of millions of innocent people and felt all legal and political resources had been exhausted and the assassination of Hitler was the only remedy. But even then he was not absolutely sure this was the right decision.

Those who would justify the murder of abortion doctors like George Tiller use Deitrich Bonhoeffer. Dr. George Tiller’s murder has been condemned by prominent pro-life leaders around America. For sure, Dr. George Tiller has the blood of 60,000 innocent humans on his hands. 

Late-term abortion doctor, George Tiller “aborted fetuses after 21 weeks when they could live outside the mother’s womb… Tiller became a millionaire doing this…only three late-term abortion clinics exist in the entire country…36 states restrict late-term abortions without violating the Constitution” (billoreilly.com).

As Janie B. Cheaney in a Worldmag.com article said, “there’s a reason why so few doctors perform late-term abortions: Few have the stomach for a procedure that involves delivering a viable infant feet-first and then crushing its head.” Nevertheless, the  murderer of George Tiller is also guilty of murder.

The comparison between the murderer of Tiller and Bonhoeffer is not accurate. The murderer of Tiller is not a Bonhoeffer. America is not Nazi Germany. According to Albert Mohler, the pro-life movement for the first time since Roe v. Wade has more supporters than opponents. America is not beyond correction like Nazi Germany.

No one can take the law in his own hands or we will become an anarchy instead of a republic. If we use the logic of those who seek to justify the murder of abortion doctors then we can also justify the murder of stem cell researchers who destroy the human embryo whom we consider human life.

Our Founding Fathers, like Bonhoeffer, felt all hope was lost against tyranny. They and Bonhoeffer rebelled not against God but sought self-defense against tyrants who possessed no respect for life or God’s laws.

The late Dr. Jack L. Arnold agreed with John MacArthur that the Revolutionary War was rebellion against God:

In our own American Revolution, Christians were divided over how to understand their responsibilities to the state and over the right to revolt. Some, especially those of the Church of England, fought on the side of the British in an attempt to be faithful to Romans 13:1. Others fled to Canada. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was a Tory and sided with England rather than with the Colonies because of his biblical conviction. Yet the Reformed Churches, especially the Presbyterians, felt the revolution justifiable. This revolution was somewhat different from others as it did not result in a breakdown of law and order. Political, social, and economic order was maintained. In fact, the Congress of 1774 had no thoughts of revolution and tried for two years to gain equal representation by lawful means. History shows that Britain, not the Colonies, forced the issue. It was in 1776, after much prayer, that the Continental Congress decided to declare its independence. This ultimately led to the formation of our Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges God as the Creator of all men. Our Constitution and form of government were set forth to a nation that was God-fearing, Christ-living, and biblically oriented. However, this does not prove it was biblically correct to revolt…To resist government is to resist God because government is merely an instrument of God.

The Founding Fathers believed and preached two theological positions to justify their civil disobedience.

1. Rebellion against tyranny is not disobedience to human government.

The Fathers agreed that citizens should obey God ordained government but not tyrants. They cited Biblical examples: Daniel, the three Hebrew children, etc., and others listed in Hebrews 11 who chose to obey God rather than the dictates of tyrants. For example, the three Hebrew children did not bow down and worship the king’s idol. Daniel did not obey the law that forbad praying. In 1750, Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew preached a sermon which was summarized in the first national motto: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

2. Offensive war does not honor God, but defensive war or self-defense does.

Even Dr. Jack Arnold admitted above: “In fact, the Congress of 1774 had no thoughts of revolution and tried for two years to gain equal representation by lawful means. History shows that Britain, not the Colonies, forced the issue. It was in 1776, after much prayer, that the Continental Congress decided to declare its independence.”

America never fired the first shot. Not at the Boston Massacre in 1770, or the bombing of Boston and the burning of Charleston in 1774, or the attacks on Williamsburg, Concord, or Lexington in 1775.

There is a Biblical basis for “Just War.” Ecclesiastes 3:8 says there is “a time of war, and a time of peace.” Jesus was not a pacifist as seen in Luke 22:36-38. Jesus told His disciples that if they did not have a sword to sell their garments and buy one. Swords were for self-defense not killing snakes.

The colonies had sought reconciliation on numerous occasions, including the “Olive Branch Petition” in May, 1776 which was rejected. Instead, King George III sent 25,000 British troops to imprison colonists which was a violation of British Common Law, English Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta. Americans simply defended themselves and their property.

When we wave our American Flags, shoot off fireworks, grill hamburgers and hotdogs, and sing “God Bless America” we are celebrating independence not insurrection.

In my next post, I will draws some applications for us today in reference to Dietrich Bonhoeffer being compared to the murderer of late term abortion doctor, George Tiller.

On July 4th we celebrate Independence Day, the day commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This document declared our independence from the government of Great Britain in 1776.

Great controversy between evangelicals rages concerning what the Founding Fathers did in the Revolutionary War for Independence.

Was the America Revolution civil disobedience or rebellion against God’s Word in Romans 13?

Was the Revolutionary War Self-Defense against Great Britain or Sin?

Was the War for Independence Just War or offensive war?

Was the Declaration of Independence a declaration of unbiblical treason?

Dr. John MacArthur represents evangelicals who think the Revolutionary War was unbiblical: “In America, certain violations of law, civil disobedience, and subversive attempts to overthrow the powers that be on a local level, state level, or national level have been led by people who claimed to be Christians. Some Christians have decided that since they received bad treatment from certain governments, they were justified in their war against those governments. To some people, evangelical Christianity was a proper justification for the American Revolution. They believe we had every right to load up our guns and kill Englishmen for the sake of our religious freedom. There are some Christians I know personally who refuse to pay their taxes because they believe that their freedoms are being violated. The truth is, the United States was born out of a violation of Romans 13:1-7 in the name of Christian freedom. That doesn’t mean God won’t overrule such violations and bring about good, which He did in this case, but that end doesn’t justify the means” (The Christian and Government: The Christian’s Responsibility to Government–Part 1, by John MacArthur).

I hope to show in my next post, why I disagree with MacArthur’s view that the American Revolution was a violation of Romans 13:1-7. In his article, however, there are some arguments with which I agree. He states that the church should not abandon its Great Commission and become a political Christian lobby that promotes protests and moderate revolutions. Pastors should not become politicians who give political speeches and instead of preaching the gospel. “That would be like a heart surgeon abandoning his life-saving practice to become a make-up artist.” Although I appreciate what Mike Huckabee is doing to advance conservatism, I could not step down from preaching and pastoring to be a political commentator.

MacArthur makes some powerful parallels between the world of Jesus and our generation and how Jesus responded. The world of Jesus had the socially and morally repugnant institution of slavery. Yet Jesus never spoke out against this social evil. Jesus lived under absolute dictators. Jesus’ generation had to pay high taxes and were persecuted. What was Jesus’ response: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

In his conclusion, MacArthur contradicts himself. He gives two principles. The first principle is, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers” (Romans 13:1). This principle is, MacArthur says, unqualified, unlimited, and unconditional.

But then MacArthur gives the limitation to this unlimited principle. MacArthur is correct in saying that the principle of obedience to government is limited by other verses of Scripture like Acts 4:13-20 and Acts 5:28. In both of these stories from the early church, the apostles disobeyed government in order to obey God. In my next post, I will demonstrate that the colonists practiced the limitation of the principle of obeying God rather than man in the War for Independence from a tyrannical government.