Obviously we can’t live by the standard that we ONLY obey our authorities when we agree with them or when we know they are 100% right or they wouldn't be authorities nor would anyone in the world ever disagree about anything, but do we also have the freedom to protest or disagree with our authorities? For example I would assume that President Bush would count as an authority since he is the President of the United States. I believe that God has placed him there for some purpose, not necessarily because GW is or claims to be a Christian or any of that nonsense but because God has a purpose in human history and is going to use GW to achieve that (which is looking different than I thought) But does that mean that I have to blindly agree on his stance and actions with the war in Iraq or about a million other things? Can I actively disagree or do I have to just bown down and submit? I can't imagine doing that.
I believe that God can and does place people in leadership and uses them to fulfill his overarching purpose but that doesn’t mean the person he placed in leadership is necessarily good.
For example look at Pharaoh in Exodus. As we have read God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to achieve his own purpose. God placed Pharaoh in leadership and used him to fulfill his promise to God’s people. That certainly didn’t make Pharaoh good nor did Moses just sit down and obey everything Pharaoh said, in fact it was his disobedience that got him into trouble at times, ultimately leading in the Hebrew people fleeing.
I'm not sure I've cleared anything up here but the fact that God can and does place people in leadership (whether they are good or otherwise) to achieve his ultimate purpose in our world. Unfortunately it rarely looks like I think it should and that might be some of the confusion. The bad or ignorant decisions that our leaders make I will certainly not agree with or blindly submit to but I can trust that God will use horrible things for some purpose. For what purpose though? How does what is happening in our world ultimately lead to redemption of our world and the human race?
HERE IS WHAT A COMMENTARY SAID:
13:1 God, the supreme Sovereign, has ordained (v. 2) that there should be governing authorities. Every believer is to be subject to these various authorities, even if these authorities are evil as Nero (A.D. 54-68), the emperor of Rome who cruelly persecuted Christians. When Paul wrote this letter, Nero was in power. Yet Paul exhorted the Roman believers to submit to Nero's authority, because that authority was ordained by God Himself, although God may not approve of all acts that a government or leader may do.
I personally think that is a bunch of garbage. That's why some commentaries are junk, they try to make everything to simple and straight forward. I don't think this scripture is that simple and am almost embarrassed that someone would try to make it this easy.
8 comments:
hahaha, you asked for it! you've got it!
I always saw this scripture (and already i've begun to make this about interpretation and subjectivism - heh) speaking to overarching laws of a society that are put in place to keep order.
I can submit to the laws of my country but not go quietly with my leaderships decisions -- this is easier in America though, where we have Freedom of Speech, to gather, and of the press.
But at the same time, i believe i have a responsibility to follow my God's decrees first. Oddly enough, a parallel of this can be found in the military. Vital to the training and way that all troops are brought into service is the concept of Integrity. That carries to telling each individual soldier to mentall check the morality of any commanding officer's order.
So, to put it plainly, troops are taught that if they think they are being told to do something that is immoral/illegal, it is their DUTY to defy their leadership. Because no one is perfect, and it is when blind acceptance of authority happens that you get Abu-Gahrib or even the Mai-Lei massacre in Vietnam.
concerning the early christian conception of authority - it is also important to note that the earliest christians refused to participate in the Roman wars and, on occasion, even denied membership to soldiers.
i've been saying for well over a year that those of us who hail from an ad fontes, primitivist tradition such as the christian churches/churches of christ should follow the early church in refusing to participate in the wars of our respective states. such a refusal would be in line with our desire to reflect the patterns and structures of the early church.
of course, it seems that no one else in our tradition agrees with me on this point, but i suppose they have the right to be wrong: )
Without trying to pin your post on just one issue, there were obvious references, both direct and indirect, to our current president and what's happening in Iraq. Please don't interpret the following as statements from a "blind follower" of a conservative leader because I understand the dangers of blending politics with Christianity. But from a Christian perspective, is this to say that removing a dictator (Hussein) who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, while also abusing for his own benefit an international program (oil-for-food) designed to help his people, is wrong, morally bankrupt and against God's will?? With respect to the questions surrounding the reasons presented for going into war, I think we should also possess the ability to set those aside and take a realistic look at the ongoing suffering these people experienced for decades. Was it God's will to leave him (and others like him) in power to continue doing these things to innocent people? Is forceful justice no longer an option in light of Christ's life and message, even for a people who have been stripped of many freedoms and all power and ability to bring change?
As to the questions about whether or not Paul was referring to "overarching laws of society" and governing principles or actual people as authorities, it seems the verses that follow in Romans 13 answer that. By calling them "rulers" and with continual references to "he", Paul seems to be personifying these "authorities" he talks about, making them actual people in positions of authority.
In the previous comment, I also noticed the reference to how the early church "even denied membership to soldiers". Were you advocating that as a correct position for the church then and today? Are soldiers who voluntarily serve in the military (of any country), willfully sinning? I find that hard to believe in view Jesus' encounter with the Roman centurion and his statements regarding his great faith. I'm not saying that Jesus wouldn't have healed his daughter anyway, but would he have openly paid such high compliments to his faith if his status in the Roman military excluded him from salvation or membership in the church that was to come?
Sorry. I know this was really long and all I did was ask a bunch of questions, but it's not the easiest subject with which to draw a line between right and wrong
- John V.
John - thanks for your thorough response, good thoughts. The direct or indirect references to our current administration or President Bush more specifically were really just an example, i probably should use another one just because this is such a touchy issue. I wasn't really trying to pigeonhole him as good or bad, just using him as an example as someone who is our highest authority of the country but that doesn't necessarily mean because he has been placed in that position by God or otherwise that his decisions are infallible or even good. I would say the same about any leader. I hope that was clear. You raised some great questions about the issue of justice which I have been struggling with for a long time. I wish I had or have heard some good answers for those. If you come across them let me know!
Gentry - your response???
No, I know you weren't trying to just target Iraq and what Bush is doing. Sorry if it came across like I was "attacking" that aspect. Didn't mean to. The questions you and others have brought up are absolutely valid. It's just a good and current example that naturally lends itself to the discussion of authorities and the role they play in the global society and God's working. It was good talking about these things in our study this summer.
Thanks for kindly calling my response "thorough". Other words come to mind like "extremely lengthy" or even "overbearing". Man, that was really long. Oh well. I've enjoyed reading your thoughts and the comments to them.
Hope all's well in Illinois. Your car is sold and we've got the money ... hahahahaha! How bad do you want it?? Just kidding. - John
hmmm, i should be working, so i can't "preach" for long:)
by mentioning the precedent of the early church i was not arguing for excluding active military personnel from our churches. however, my reading of the sermon of the mount and understanding of constantinian christianity leads me to believe that we should not encourage young followers of jesus to submit themselves to organizations which will demand their allegiance to an entity other than the Kingdom of God and likely compel them to directly or indirectly participate in the act of war.
i have a friend that is an army ranger in northern iraq and a cousin who is a newly minted f-16 pilot who will likely be deployed this month. do i think their activities are prima facie sinful? no. would i deny that my cousin, who confesses Christ, is a follower of Jesus? no. do i wish they were not spending their days putting their necks on the line and ordering their lives around city of man, which, however noble and free, is a limited entity that is here for a day and gone tomorrow. yes.
i hope that you do not interpret my statement as arrogant or self assured. i am thankful for the sacrifices our soldiers throughout the ages have made and am as fond of my country as the next guy. i just get a little nervous when the city of man starts to compel our ultimate allegiance. while individuals can certainly pledge such allegiance, i think the church's focus should always lie elsewhere.
shit. it's 8.10 a.m. i gots to work.
Post a Comment