I admit I am conflicted. I have a large Anabaptist streak in me that says we should be in the world doing the work of God, but not a part of the world's system at all. Yet, another large part of me feels strongly that we are called to be Christ in every part of this world, including government, and must affect change wherever possible.
In my mind the Bible does not lay out a clear answer. The New Testament was written at a time when Christians had no voice, so I see the scriptures advice to obey existing authority as first and foremost an act of preservation. Because the Bible is timeless and speaks also to us, we forget that the NT letters sought to address the timely and specific concerns of the early churches. There are also numerous examples, From Moses to Daniel to Paul, of men acting in resistance to authority.
The varied interpretations give us everything from Mennonites to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who worked as a double-agent in Nazi Germany and tried to murder Hitler. As quoted in this article, Bonhoeffer's book Ethics provides a summary for his argument:
Responsible action is how Christians act in accordance with the will of God.
The demand for responsible action - that is, acting in accordance with God's will - is one that no Christian can ignore.
Christians are, therefore, faced with a dilemma: when assaulted by evil, they must oppose it through direct action. They have no other option. Any failure to act is simply to condone evil.
My fundamental belief is that God would have Christians put their hope for a changed world in Christ, not in any man or government of men. I also believe that we are all given freedom, but by freely submitting to Christ, God can empower the actions of his followers when they do His will. To me, that leaves room for both Mennonites and Bonhoeffers.
10 comments:
My intention is to post a more thorough thought, but for now will leave it at this.
I agree with the closing statement. There has to be a balance; our debate will be on where that lies.
I think we should also take into account that Bonhoeffer's thought is greatly influenced by his time and place in history, and his application will be different than ours.
But quickly - and this is the tact I will take for discussion, we see Moses, Daniel and Paul acting within the framework of the authority without comprimising their proclamation of the gospel. It was "Let my people go" not "I'm taking the people, try to stop me". Pharoah allowed them to go and gave them "gifts" after 9 persuasive arguments presented by Jehovah.
Well, back to work for now.
I look forward to it.
I agree with what you have said so far. Christians should certainly not be Malatov cocktail throwing anarchists, and should seek to work within the system when possible. But I don't think we should sacrifice our ideals in the name obsequiousness.
I think we both are in agreement on this one. I agree that the Bible does not lay out a clear answer. This is not a case where you can say you should act in one particular manner in every situation. The verse that I was looking for was Romans 13:1-2 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” Within that though, we see constantly in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament where Christians continue to proclaim the gospel of Christ without regard to law or consequence – see Acts 4:19 “But Peter and john replied, judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” So you’re right – it isn’t cut and dry for every situation, there is a balance, and my stance would be that almost every time the only occasion where it is appropriate to disobey the government established by God is when they require us to stifle our Christian witness, renounce our God, or compromise our relationship with Jesus Christ. Areas where we should submit, in my opinion, include allowing others to disagree, allowing establishment to promote false teaching as long as we have freedom to practice our faith, not bombing abortion clinics (an easy one), accepting unfairness and punishment for things we didn’t do (see Joseph), persecution for our beliefs, and I would say that a Christian who spends their time crusading against the removal of prayer in schools or the ten commandments from the courthouse is acting under misguided zeal. Corporate public prayer is far different from the individual priesthood of a believer.
Bonhoeffer’s time is certainly vastly different than ours. I don’t think in America we face any situation where we would have to debate which side of this argument to choose. I think we can safely assume that the government should be obeyed. I feel it would probably be best to recuse myself from projecting a moral or spiritual statement on how to act in the face of the horrors Dietrich saw. My impression from a position of innocence and ignorance would be to hide the Jews, help them escape, do everything you can to thwart the genocide perpetrated by the government, but like Dr. RosenRosen, I find it hard to justify the murder of another before God no matter how despicable.
I do take offense with your assumption that all people throwing Molotov cocktails are anarchists. Many are good people just upset with cheap alcohol.
I have to say, I think Paul is wrong on this one - I simply don't agree that ALL authorities have been established by God. Now if Paul is speaking against violent revolution, I can get agree with that. If Paul is saying that we should follow Christ's example and engage the powers by shaming them, then I'm on board with that. However, I simply don't accept that God has established all authorities. But hey, I'm a Baptist - I can disagree with anyone on matters theological, even Paul.
Perhaps it means that God has established the principle of government, not that He has specifically directed through His will individual leaders. I think He allows nations to elect and create the governments and rulers that they desire/deserve, but expects that we submit to them within the confines of His will and teaching. That may be a better way to look at it.
I don't mean to convey that we sit back passively while evil takes place around us. I would agree with you about both statements - violent revolution and shaming the powers, and I think that would fit within Paul's intention as well. He certainly challenged, debated, and embarrassed the authorities.
This may be best for a new topic or thread, but I have difficulty saying I could disagree with Paul (at least what he wrote that is in the Scriptures). I could be completely missing what you were trying to say, but wouldn't we be saying we disagree with the Holy Spirit who inspired the Word of God? Or do we even accept that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (which could start a whole different topic)? Maybe you weren't trying to go that deep with the comment, but thought I would explore a little bit more.
I would also say when it comes to me, you should disagree early and often. I am frequently wrong, and usually incorrect.
Wow, I really didn't mean to take us here. I'm not sure I want to get into holy spirit inspiration topic on this topic. I will say that I have difficulty reading some portions of the bible and not saying, "you know, I'm not sure what to make of that passage." I don't deny that Paul's writings (or other parts of the Bible) are inspired or even true, I'm only saying I don't necessarily agree with this one point Paul means what I think he means. I don't certainly don't disagree with the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by some of my earlier comments. However, to say that any given portion was inspired by the Holy Spirit assumes that it was in fact inspired by the Holy Spirit and ONLY the Holy Spirit. One could make an argument that the Holy Spirit, while surly inspirational, may have been only one of many factors at play - I can't ignore that the books of the Bible written from a particular human point of view with a particular human agenda behind it - I know I can't always be completely objective in what I write or think. (As a side point, I find it interesting that this passage is part of the Canon, especially when you consider that the Nicene Counsel was instituted at the request and proceeded under the direction of Constantine, a ruler who had just claimed a victory that consolidated his earthly power in the name of God and, by his own assertion, by divine deliverence. Constantine was a Christian and we owe him much gratitude, but I can't ignore that he was also the embodiment of an earthly government). This certainly isn't as cut-and-dry as my comment may have made it seem, but but I do know that I have trouble taking Paul's words on this particular issue at face value - it just doesn't make sense to me. And perhaps that's something I need to deal with on my own. Ok, that's a different topic - Justus, we're doing your work for you here!
I've also considered the hypothesis offered by Herr/Frau Anon. posted two. God has given humans free will, and in that sense, their political choices are are ordained. But I don't think God hand picks governments or influences the outcome of elections (otherwise how would you explain the success of one devout candidate over another devout candidate in any given election?). Others would disagree vehemently. I can agree God he has ordained that humans may (and do) chose their own governments, and this makes more sense to me.
I've got far more questions than answers at this point.
I'll let the two of you slug it out on theology. Thanks for the comments.
Rosen, I did not mean to imply that you disagreed with the Holy Spirit - I agree that is evidenced by many if not all of your previous comments. I think at the center of our arguments we lie at the same place. Perhaps around the edges we differ some, and that is a discussion I would enjoy having with you at a later date - Justus as well. And I think those are the discussions that are healthy to our faith.
For me as well there are passages that don't make sense, and I honestly can't explain in a way that seems relevant. That is a benefit of these discussions. Different viewpoints, perceptions, and more than one mind on a topic always come up with a better answer than an individual.
You are correct, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible is distinctly influenced and written by humans, and personally I would benefit from a greater knowledge of how the canon was formed. Without having devoted significant study to the matter, my impulse would be that yes, an errant and sinful man both wrote and canonized the scriptures - even where Paul states it is all given by inspiration from God, but my faith tells me that the same God is omnipotent and can direct man in such a way that His word is not compromised and neither is man's free will, so I have to trust that or else where do I stop removing passages that don't suit me? (Check out the length of that sentence!) Of course that last statement does nothing to help me explain what Paul means in I Tim 2:12 when he says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent". I have no idea what to do with that or why it is in there.
Well, more questions and even less answers that we can dig into more later.
I'll admit, I'm starting to enjoy this blogging, I just need to come up with a real name.
Anon, good luck on the name search - almost as difficult as cyphering through the scriptures. When in doubt, I always go to the source: Fletch.
And thanks to all on this thread who are open to these discussion. Scriptural interpretation is something that it both highly personal and highly contentious. I honestly enjoy hearing different perspectives as I try to figure things out for myself. This thread could have easily turned into a firestorm, but I appreciate the thoughtful interplay.
Post a Comment