The National Constitution

As I was saying when I got this assignment, I had to chuckle being the American who's presenting here, because you may or may not know, but we're Americans. Are very proud of our constitution, proud of the fact that it's the oldest continuous constitution in the world today, I think, by far. But what you may not know is that there are people who view the US Constitution as more than just the Constitution. So as we get started, I think it's important that I clarify what we are not saying when we talk about National Constitution as Covenant number one. We are not saying that constitutions are divinely inspired documents. And yes, there are religious groups in the US that argue that the US Constitution is a divinely inspired document, which is why you can see why I would chuckle when I was given this assignment. That is not the argument. We're also not saying that constitutions or that Christians should read or consider constitutions as authoritative in the same way as the Bible. They are not, So that's not the argument that we're making here. So what are we saying when we talk about the National Constitution as Covenant? Well, what we're saying is that constitutions function in ways similar to the function of covenants. You can't miss the similarity. The idea of the constitution is influenced by the concept of covenant and even has similar elements to covenants. Also, constitutions tend to use covenantal language and ceremonies there. We just saw the swearing in of the President of Zambia a couple of days ago, or was it yesterday, the swearing in of the President of Zambia. That was a very covenantal event, hand on Bible taking an oath, So help me, God. Our understanding of covenant influences our understanding of constitution. So when we talk about national Constitution as covenant, we're speaking in general terms. We're not elevating this to the same kind of document or giving it the same kind of authority as Biblical covenants. But we know that the idea of covenant is an ancient idea. We understand that the Biblical covenants really follow the mold and the model of ancient Near Eastern covenants, especially covenants of the Late Bronze Age. So with that in mind, what is a covenant? What definition are we using as we talk about national constitutions as covenants, we're using this definition an agreement enacted between two or more parties and which one or both make promises under oath to perform or refrain from certain actions stipulated in advance. Let me say that again, the broadest definition of a covenant is that a covenant is an agreement between two or more persons. If you have children and you catechize them and use the Catechism for boys and girls, then you know that answer to the question, right, what is a covenant? And a covenant is an agreement between two or more persons. But here we're talking about an agreement and acted between two or more parties in which one or both make promises under oath to perform or refrain from certain actions stipulated in advance. So two elements that we're speaking of. One agreement between parties, and in that way we can absolutely see how the national constitution functions in that way as an agreement between parties, and two the idea of oaths and vowels and ceremonies. And so we see that this is important for a number of reasons, not least of which is, you know, and there's been a lot of talk recently about Romans thirteen, especially in this new COVID era, as governments make decisions and give edicts concerning when and whether or how churches can meet. There's been a lot of debate over how we respond to this in light of Romans thirteen. Stingly enough, your answer to that question is going to depend a great deal on the way you understand the Constitution, on the way that you understand the way that the Constitution functions as a sort of covenant, if you will, And we'll get to that at the end as we sort of apply this. So, what are the elements of a covenant? I want us to see these elements. Then I want us to look at the Zambian Constitution. You thought I was going to talk about the American Constitution. I am not. I love the US Constitution. I am an American, but living in Zambia for six years as of yesterday, believe it or not. And so we're going to talk about the Zambian Constitution here today as our example. So what are the elements that we're looking for? There really five one historical events that create relationships, usually between unequal parties, especially when you're looking at ancient covenants, the ancient Near Eastern covenants, which would have been the understanding of covenant that that biblical writers would have had. It would have talked about and laid out historical events that established the relationship between the parties, and it would have been very important for that to be read during this ceremonial oaths and vowels. Secondly, customary ways of thinking that are characteristic of both parties, especially common religious ideas and so forth, references to God. Thirdly, descriptions of the norms the more's the rules for behavior, the expected rules for behavior, not necessary, not necessarily, the laws for behavior when, but but the norms of behavior, the cultural norms. Fourthly, there is a certain literary form that we see in a covenant, and you can tell that this is not a normal document, that there's something special happening here because of the way that words are used or phrases are used. And five there's almost always the ritual act of not only enacting their covenant, but also as individuals come into certain offices or come into certain positions within a given society, uh they take oaths to that covenant. So with those five things in mind, let's look, for example at the preamble to the Zambian Constitution. And we could have picked any number of constitutions, but we're in Zambia today, so let's look at the preamble to the Zambian Constitution. We the people of Zambia, acknowledge the supremacy of God Almighty. Remember this common religious language is a very important part of covenants. So we the people of Zambia acknowledge the supremacy of God Almighty. Declare the Republic a Christian nation while upholding a person's right to freedom of conscience, belief or religion. So again, declaring that it's a Christian nation. Uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every person. Commit ourselves to upholding the principles of democracy and good governance. Resolve to ensure that our values Again remember the third one is the description of the norms right. Resolve to ensure that our values relating to family, morality, pay, triotism, and justice are maintained, and all functions of the state are performed in our common interests. Confirm the equal worth of women and men and their right to freely participate in Determine and build a sustainable political, legal, economic, and social order recognize and uphold the multi ethnic, multiracial, multi religious, and multicultural character of our nation and our right to manage our affairs and resources sustainably in a the all system of governance, resolve that Zambia shall remain a unitary, multi party and democratic sovereign state. And then finally or not finally, recognize and honor the freedom fighters who fought for the independence of our nation in order to achieve liberty, justice and unity for the people of zam Remember point number one, those historic events that are recounted in a covenant and directed all state organs and state institutions abide by and respect our sovereign will do hereby solemnly adopt. Again, there's that solemn language, that covenantal language. If you will do hereby solemnly adopt and give to ourselves this constitution. So I don't think when you look at the definition, especially a broader definition of a covenant as an agreement enacted between two or more parties in which one are both promises under oath to perform or refrain from certain actions stipulated in advance. And then when you look at those five elements that we talk about in a covenant. I don't think it's any stretch to see that those who put together the Zambian Constitution, as in many nations, have in the back of their minds at least or maybe even in the forefront of their minds, this idea of covenant, and so it's not difficult to see how these things would function in that way. We see agreements between parties and we see promises under oath. Those two main elements in the oaths of office. There's an entire section of the Zambian Constitution, for example, on oaths of office, and we find there a person assuming the office of President shall take and subscribe the oath of President as set out in the first schedule, and the oath shall be administered by and subscribe before the Chief Justice. So there's the one for the president. You take this office, you take an oath, you take an oath. A person assuming the office of Vice President, Speaker of the National Assembly, minister or deputy Minister, shall not perform the duties of his office unless he has taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance. You have to take an oath again, this very covenantal idea. The Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, a judge of the Supreme Court, or a commissioner of the High Court shall not enter upon the duties of his office unless he has taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance. This is again not just a zambient thing. In virtually every country or commonwealth in the world, there is an oath that is taken, but the oath will differ according to what kind of government exists. Now, this is where things get interesting, and this is why it's incredibly important. For example, in Romans chapter thirteen and verse one, remember we said that there's a lot of talk about Romans thirteen these days. And Romans thirteen, verse one we read, let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Again, much discussion and much debate as of late about what this means and how it applies. Who are the governing authorities? Because every person is supposed to be subject to the governing authorities, And the way you answer that question is going to go a long way in determining how you see yourself functioning within a given society. Well, there are various forms of government On the one end, you have the idea of a totalian, totalitarian government where there's one individual in charge, a monarchy, if you will, and all the way on the other end the spectrum, you would have anarchy where there is no government. In a monarchy, it's pretty easy to understand who the governing authorities would be. The governing authority would be the monarch, and so when you swear allegiance, you swear allegiance to the king, to the queen, so on and so forth. Pure monarchies have almost never existed, just like pure anarchy really only exists as a transitional form until somebody takes over. Usually what we have as an oligarchy. An oligarchy is a government in which not one individual, but a small group of individuals would rule, and in that instance, being subject to the governing authorities would really point you to being subject to the oligarchy, to the oligarchs, to that small number of individuals who rule. On the other end, coming back from anarchy, you have this idea of democracy, a word that is almost always misused. When we use the term democracy, we usually don't mean democracy because in a democracy, literally it is majority rule period. The law can say whatever the law wants. But if fifty one percent of the people say a, then that is the law. If fifty one percent of the people vote to kill the other forty nine percent, they get killed and nothing stops it. That's pure democracy. In the middle of those is the idea of a republic, specifically constitutional republic. And in a republic, the governing authority is actually the constitution. Now, let that sink in for a moment, because that's not the way that most of us think about it. For the longest time, that wasn't the way that I thought about it. That when most Christians think about Romans thirteen and they read governing authority, they mean people, and specifically they mean a king or a president, or maybe a governor or a mayor. They mean the chief executive. The governing authority is the chief executive, and so if the chief executive says something, then you do what the chief executive says. Or the governing authority is any person in authority that you happen to come into contact with. So if a police officer or a whomever says something or declares something, that's the governing authority. You submit to the governing authority. Therefore, obeying governing authorities means obeying people. Romans thirteen, we also believe is only about the Christian's duty to the governing authorities and not the governing authorities duty to those whom they govern. But Romans thirteen is very clear about the duties and responsibility of the governing authorities to those whom they govern. Therefore, we believe that good Christians would never rebel against the edicts of people in high office, and that's the way we think about it. However, is that accurate in a constitutional republic, Well, the short answer is no. Article five of the Zambian Constitution sovereign authority. Now remember Romans thirteen says to be subject to the governing authorities. Article five sovereign authority. Sovereign authority vests in the people of Zambia, which may be exercised directly or through elected or appointed representatives or institutions. Secondly, power that is not conferred by or under this Constitution on any state organ, state institution, state officer, constitutional office holder, or other institutional person is reserved for the people. And Finally, the people of Zambia shall exercise their reserved power through a referendum as prescribed. So who are the governing authorities in Zambia? You ask the average Christian and they'll say, of course, the president. But you asked the Zambian Constitution and it says the people and the constitution are the governing authorities. Why is this important for those who are aware of what happened in Zambia? For example, over the last couple of weeks, we saw an example of why this is important. There's a principle in reform theology, the law of the lesser magistrate, and we saw that in the Zambian setting. Just a couple of weeks ago. The election occurred and all of a sudden there's blackouts of certain apps, and then there's a whole blackout of the Internet. So the governing authority says, no Internet. The response of the judiciary was an injunction against the president. Here's what you have to ask yourself. Was that injunction a violation of Romans thirteen? If the president is the governing authority he says he wants to shut down the internet, then the good Christian has to just live without internet. Or does the lesser magistrate recognize that the governing authority in a republic is not a person, but the law stand up to even the highest officer in the land, because even that officer swears an oath not to himself but to the constitution. Do you see how this changes things? Again, this is not the way most Christians think about Romans thirteen. Most Christians come to Romans thirteen and they say, well, if a person is an elected office, and they say jump, we say how high. If a person is an elected office and they ask us to do something that is a violation of the law, then we do that thing because as good Christians, we submit to the governing authority, and the governing authority is a person. Not so in a constitutional republic, the governing authority is the law of the land, and even the highest ranking official must submit to the law of the land. What are the implications of this? I want to look at some implications, and then some applications, and then examples. I want to see an example. Implication number one, the identity of the governing authority depends on the nature and form of government under which we find ourselves. That answer is not the same everywhere in the world. In some places, the governing authority is going to be a king. In some places going to be a dictator, and some places is going to be an oligarch. In other places, however, it will be some form of republican government laws, people governed by laws. Secondly, submission to the governing authorities in a republic depends on the occasion and the jurisdiction. Submission to governing authorities in a republic depends on the occasion and the jurisdiction, because ultimately, in most instances, self rule is going to be the most important issue. Otherwise society falls apart. Thirdly, submission to governing authorities is always limited by the law of God. In other words, no man can demand what God forbids, or forbid what God commands. Let me say that again, No man, no one anywhere, can command what God forbids or forbid what God commands. Which is why in Acts chapter five, right when Peter and John are told to stop preaching in the name of Jesus, they didn't say, ah, governing authority says we can't preach. Nope, they say, whether it is right to obey God rather than man. You be the judge. But we cannot but speak of what we've seen and we've heard. In other words, they disobeyed the governing authorities because what the governing authorities were demanding was in direct contradiction to the commandments of God. Another implication of this is that wherever we find ourselves, we have a duty and an obligation to no discern, understand, and obey the governing authorities. And in the republic, that means we need to know what the law is. Otherwise we don't even know where that begins or ends. We have a duty to be good citizens. Christians are called and commanded to be good submissive citizens. There is no question about that. Romans thirteen, for example, is very clear, as is on Peter two. First, Peter three Bibles very clear. Christians are called to be good submissive citizens. Amen. Secondly, we are to submit to the laws of our republic. And if we are to submit to the laws of our republic, we must know those laws. And I'll just put a pin here. This is very interesting for me, being a stranger and a strange land. I'm a foreigner, So as a foreigner, I can't just come in to Zambia and live here and say, well, I know what the US Constitution says, so I'm going to govern myself in accordance with that. No, I am in another sovereign jurisdiction. So it's my duty and responsibility number one in coming here. I need to obey that sovereign authority, and I need to come here the way they tell me. I need to come here, right. If I need visa, if I need to work permit, if I need whatever, then I get that because I'm recognizing that sovereign authority. So according to Romans thirteen, I don't just cross any border that I want and live any way that I want. So as a foreigner, it's my duty to have an understanding of the governing authorities wherever I find myself, and I can't just say I live by the principles of the country from which I come. So if we're going to submit to the laws of republic, we must know them. The last application is this, Sometimes submission to the laws of the republic requires resistance to men who subvert those laws. And we talked about that example from last week. If a man subverts the law, it doesn't matter that he holds high office. It is the duty of the lesser magistrate to resist. And that's exactly what we saw. Again. This is not the way that most of us think about Romans thirteen. And maybe as you hear this, you said that just that just doesn't sit well with me. I don't get that. I don't see that it says the governing authorities. It's talking about people. Okay, let's look at a couple of examples as we apply this. And we're going to use two examples from the man who wrote the Book of Romans. So the apostle Paul in Acts chapter sixteen. So turn to Acts chapter sixteen, beginning in verse thirty five. This is the apostle Paul in Philippi, Acts, chapter sixteen, beginning at verse number thirty five. So they're in jail, the Philippi in jail, and all these things have happened. But when it was day, the magistrates sent the police saying let those men go. So the local magistrate and the local police, these would be governing authorities. Right, So if Romans thirteen means submit to the governing authorities, then that means whatever the magistrate and the local police say, Paul should do it. Right, Because Paul wrote Romans chapter thirteen, and the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying the magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore, come out now and go in peace. So Paul said, yes, I'm the author of Romans thirteen. Whatever they say, I will do. No. But Paul said to them, they have beaten us publicly, uncondemned men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison, and do they now throw us out secretly? No, let them come themselves and take us out. The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens. So they came and apologized to them, and they took them out and asked them to leave the city. Then demand it, they asked it. So they went out of the prison and visited Lydia, and when they had seen the brothers, they encouraged them and departed again. If Romans thirteen is supposed to mean anytime someone in authority says something, you do it, then the guy who wrote Romans thirteen just violated his own principle. Because the local magistrate said go, the police said go, Paul said no, they come here. And what did he appeal to. He appealed to the law of Rome, because that is the governing authority, not the magistrate, not the police, but the law of by the way, the first republic. Rome is the first republic. By the way, this wasn't the only time. Go to Acts chapter twenty two in Jerusalem, Acts chapter twenty two, beginning at verse number twenty three, Acts twenty two and twenty three. And as they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, the tribune ordered him to be brought into the barracks, saying that he should be examined by flogging to find out why they were shouting against him like this, shouting against him in the temple. So he's going to be brought into the barracks. He's going to be brought in there, you know, to this the northern part of the temple, this fortress where he was going to be flogged, this place where Jesus was flogged. But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said, you're the governing authorities, so if I'm to be whipped, I'm to be whipped. No, it's not what he said. Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, is it lawful for you to flog a man who was a Roman citizen and uncondemned. He is appealing to the law of Rome as the governing authority. When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, what are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen. So the tribune came and said to him, tell me, are you a Roman citizen? And he said yes. The tribune answered, I bought this citizenship for a large sum. There were a number of ways that you could become a Roman citizen. You could be born a Roman citizen, you could buy Roman citizenship, or you could earn Roman citizenship through some extraordinary act. Paul said, but I am a citizen by birth. He's born a Roman citizen. So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him. He had violated the law of Rome, and so Paul called him on it. Paul appealed to the governing authority, which in the republic is the law and not a man. So if men who hold authority in the Republic are exercising that authority wrongly, we not only have a right, but an obligation to speak up. Against that. Now, this is incredibly difficult for us because, as I said, most Christians have always read and thought of Romans thirteen as teaching Christians that whatever a person who holds authority says, were we do because that person is the governing authority. Again, if we are in a monarchy and the monarch says something, yes, the monarch is the governing authority. If we are in an oligarchy and oligarch says something, is that oligarch is the governing authority. If we are in a pure democracy and fifty one percent of people cast a vote and say something, then that fifty one percent of the people are the governing authority. But if we are in a constitutional republic, then we're ruled by laws, not by men, and men derive their authority from the consent of the government and from the constitution to which they make an oath. So you can see why this idea of national constitution is covenant, is important that it has very significant implications. Now let me hurry to say that this doesn't mean you know that we walk around you know, with with our our our you know, constitution in hand and you know, calling everyone on everything. No, that not at all I want you to notice a couple of things. Number One, when Paul was brought in to be flogged, he spoke up when after he had already submitted, after he had already surrendered, they're tying him up. And now he sees the individual in charge of this group, and now he speaks. What does that mean? That means we exercise wisdom. Sometimes we end up obeying a person who's exercising authority wrongly until we get in the right place, in the right context to rectify the wrong. And so it may not be officer, you're wrong. In fact, it probably shouldn't be officer, you're wrong. It should probably be officer okay, and then wait for an our opportunity to rectify that through the proper channels. But at times we might find ourselves as a lesser magistrate, we might find ourselves holding an office and someone from a higher office is doing something in violation of the laws that we've been sworn to uphold. So what do we do. We exercise our authority and we resist. Again. We don't like this, But we've seen in two instances in Romans chapter sixteen and also I mean sorry in Acts chapter sixteen and Acts Chapter twenty two, where the author of Romans thirteen appeals to the governing authority, which is not the tribune, which is not the officer in Philippi, and not the magistrate in Philippi, but the law of the Roman Empire, of which he was a citizen. Now, I recognize that in many ways this will raise a number of questions, but I take you back to those points of application, because there are people listening now from dozens of different countries or republics or kingdoms or whatever. What. Remember those applications. First, Christians are called to be good submissive citizens. We're called to be good submissive citizens. Secondly, we are to submit to the laws of our republic. If we are rather to submit to the laws of our republic, we have to know them. We need to know who or what the governing authorities are. We have a duty and an obligation as good submissive citizens to understand that we don't all have to have legal degrees. And we don't hate you again, but I'm speaking about a basic understanding and in sometimes submission to the law of the republic requires resistance to men who subvert those laws. We don't like that, and it seems to run completely counter to Rome's Chapter thirteen, but Acts sixteen and Acts twenty two give us a beautiful picture of that. Also Acts five, Acts chapter five gives us a beautiful picture of that, and Acts chapter five. Though they're not appealing to the authority of Rome or the law of Rome and Acts chapter five, they're appealing to the law of God because the authorities have tried to command or tried to forbid something that God commands, and no one can do that. I also want you to note that in Acts chapter five they refused to obey that law, but submitted themselves to the punishment that would come. And sometimes that's exactly what we end up having to do. Someone commands something that God forbids, or forbids something that God commands. We can't do that. It would be sin to do that. It would be sin to do something that God commands us not to do. It would be sin to not do something that God commands us to do, And so we don't sin. We refuse to do that, but at the same time we recognize that we may have to submit to the consequences, which is exactly what happened to Peter and John as they were later flogged, but they never stopped doing what God commanded. I'll say this, this doesn't make it easy to make decisions and determinations about what we ought to do and what we ought not to do. This doesn't make it easy to draw the lines and know when to resist and when to obey. It doesn't make it easy. However, it does give us the tracks to run on. It does give us the principles to live by. And unfortunately, as Christians, most of us want things in black and white. We want to paint by numbers. Kit we want someone to say, if this happens, you do that. The last thing we want someone to say is you need to think through this. But that's exactly what I'm saying. As followers of Christ and as citizens of whatever nation, republic, kingdom we find ourselves in, we have an obligation to think through this, to apply our biblical worldview and biblical grid to the circumstances under which we find ourselves and live accordingly, and to do so to the glory of God, trusting in God's providence and resting in his grace. Let's pray, Gracious God, our heavenly Father, we thank you and praise you for your goodness and kindness and mercy toward us. We even praise you for the privilege of being part of a constitutional republic, and in this instance, in Zambia, a constitutional republic that identifies itself as a Christian republic. We can't help but think of people right now in Afghanistan who find themselves under terrible circumstances where it is not only difficult, but even impossible at times to understand who the governing authorities are, and we're submission to those authorities as at times unthinkable. We pray for the people in that land who are yours. We pray that you would grant them wisdom, that you would grant them your protection. And for all of us, we pray that you would grant us wisdom to live as good citizens of both kingdoms to which we belong, citizens of the Kingdom of God, recognizing that that kingdom always rules and overrules, and also citizens of the earthly kingdoms to which we belong. Grant by your grace that our heavenly citizenship would make us be a blessing in our earthly citizenship. We pre this in Christ name and for his sake. Amen. M m m M M m M m h. We are grateful to the Lord for that uh presentation. We've just given him a minute or so too. Just take a short break. But at the moment, we have three questions and I will be directing directing them to your son. The first question is as follows, is there a close example from the scriptures about a national covenant? And the second question is who are the parties in this kind of covenant? I guess these are simple questions, but maybe just shading a bit more life. Thank you. Yeah. I think the classic example of that national covenant would be is Rose covenant. Is Rose national covenant. And in fact, where people often get off base is when we read covenantal language that has to do specifically with the nation of Israel, and we juxtapose our nation with Israel. The classic example of Second Chronicle seven fourteen. If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray, and you know, seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I hear from heaven and heal their land. That is for Israel. That's part of Israel's national covenant. You know, Solomon has built the Lord's House, and this is right after he's built the Lord's house, and so you have the divided covenant there as well. No nation anywhere in the world has the right to take that text and say this text is for our nation. Now. If anything, we look at that and we see God working with the people of God in that way, and we see a picture for the church, for example, ample of of this call to repentance as the covenant. You know body, so Israel would be that quintessential example of that. In the other issue, who are the parties of the covenant? It depends on the covenant. Sometimes it's a covenant between nations. At other times it would be a covenant between the citizens themselves or among the citizens themselves. At other times it would be a covenant, for example, between the monarch and their subjects. So it just depends on the covenant. Those parties would be identified therein And the third one, Yes, in the context of the republic where the law struck constitution is the governing authority, how should Christians respond to immoral laws? Yeah? How should Christians respond to immoral laws? It doesn't matter. The first part of that question can be gone right in the context of a republic, in the context, in the context of any government, Christians respond to immoral laws by refusing to obey immoral laws. We can't. We just we can't obey immoral laws. No man can command what God forbids, or forbid what God commands. Now, we may have to suffer consequences for that, as I said, and I mean, so be it. But as Christians, we mustn't obey laws that are immoral. At one point in Zambia there was a declaration that it was a Christian nation. What is your comment over such a covenant as a nation. I don't what's the I don't understand. Well, that's a very broad question. It sounds like I'm walking into a trap. I need a more specific question than that. Yeah, maybe the question is there are times you'll find countries here in Zambia they'll say Zambia is a Christian nation, so you are committed to following the Christian you know, commands and all that. Now, the question seems to be saying, is that a good covenant? Can you make such a covenant or declare such a thing? Having in mind maybe that there are people in the country who are Christians and some are not saved. Yeah, but I think the Zambian the Zambian Constitution acknowledges that the Zambian Constitution says this is a Christian republic but recognizes that people have freedom of religion, right, So we're not forcing Christianity on people. We are simply acknowledging that when it comes to our ethos and understanding that that's the perspective from which we're operating. So I think, yeah, that that that's very important because and I think this is what the questionner is getting to. No republic can declare that it's citizens are Christians. We we just like we can't do that, right. Christianity is about repentance and faith, so no one can declare or confirm that on another individual. Thank you. It is either your presentation was very clear or people are still thinking about chewing on it. It's a lot to chew on. It really is a lot too on because the way we normally think about it is that word governing authorities means people and specifically people in the executive offices, and that's that's just the way we think about it, you know. But I think it's pretty clear that's not the way Paul thought about it, and this makes it a lot more complicated. Well before you leave the puppets. Do you have any last comments, anything that you'd like to say. No, just I think as Christians we need to do a better job of thinking in this way. I think we're very lazy when it comes to thinking about ourselves as citizens and thinking about what it means to be good citizens. And we have a tendency to think, well, I'm just going to operate over here in my church, or I'm going to operate over here in my family. God gave us three institutions. He gave us the institution of the church, of the family, and of the civil government. And as Christians, we are obligated to live faithfully in all three of those realms. And I think the civil realm is where we tend to fall down, and I think our society suffer because of it, because they need us as sault and light in the civil realm. Thank you,