Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[JettaKnight]

Romans 13 never really makes it onto the sermon list with these guys...

Sure they do!

...For there is no authority except from God...

See! Right there is all you need to know or read.

 

[historian]

Modern liberal democracy poses a much bigger problem to Romans 13 than Paul had to deal with.

 

[HoughMade]

Modern liberal democracy poses a much bigger problem to Romans 13 than Paul had to deal with.

How so?

 

[JettaKnight]

Modern liberal democracy poses a much bigger problem to Romans 13 than Paul had to deal with.

 

[T.Lex]

Maybe CM can describe his experience under Roman rule.

That might provide some insight.

 

[JettaKnight]

Maybe CM can describe his experience under Roman rule.

That might provide some insight.

 

[historian]

How so?

It is easier to put the government it a box if you are not a participant in it. It is easier to follow (or not follow) government orders when you are not the government.

 

[HoughMade]

It is easier to put the government it a box if you are not a participant in it. It is easier to follow (or not follow) government orders when you are not the government.

I would say that the principles have not and do not change.

You work to influence government to enact laws and policies which you believe to be wise.

...but regardless of the outcome, you respect and obey government unless it requires something of you personally which is in direct opposition to Scripture...and that is a tiny, tiny exception. The only one I see in Scripture is when the civil authorities said to stop preaching the Gospel, they refused.

- Taxes? Pay them.
- Governors? Respect them (you don't have to agree, but the disagreement should be respectful).
- Laws? Follow them whether you like them or not (with the very limited exception noted above)

 

[JettaKnight]

It is easier to put the government it a box if you are not a participant in it. It is easier to follow (or not follow) government orders when you are not the government.

Ah, that makes more sense. I see now - "liberal", not "Liberal".

 

[NKBJ]

This plandemic reminds me of what was tried by the secret brotherhood bozos that took over Mexico 90 years ago, their thinking at the time being that if they could just keep people away from church long enough that the people wouldn't go back.

 

[JettaKnight]

This plandemic reminds me of what was tried by the secret brotherhood bozos that took over Mexico 90 years ago, their thinking at the time being that if they could just keep people away from church long enough that the people wouldn't go back.

Well, if people were just going to church as a social club, or weekly therapy session, then I don't want them coming back.




And for us ignorant folks, will you post a link to this historical event?

 

[historian]

I would say that the principles have not and do not change.

You work to influence government to enact laws and policies which you believe to be wise.

...but regardless of the outcome, you respect and obey government unless it requires something of you personally which is in direct opposition to Scripture...and that is a tiny, tiny exception. The only one I see in Scripture is when the civil authorities said to stop preaching the Gospel, they refused.

- Taxes? Pay them.
- Governors? Respect them (you don't have to agree, but the disagreement should be respectful).
- Laws? Follow them whether you like them or not (with the very limited exception noted above)

But it isn't clear cut. I mean, look at the Jim Crow laws and how Christians outright opposed authority. It gets really ticky-tacky in self-government. Where do you not obey the civil government when the civil government oversteps it constitutional boundaries? It gets really awkward.

 

[T.Lex]

And for us ignorant folks, will you post a link to this historical event?

I think that's a reference to a variation of a socialist model that had a single political party as an extension of the government.

 

[JettaKnight]

But it isn't clear cut. I mean, look at the Jim Crow laws and how Christians outright opposed authority.

Could you expound on this for my own edification?

It gets really ticky-tacky in self-government. Where do you not obey the civil government when the civil government oversteps it constitutional boundaries? It gets really awkward.

Despite the conventional wisdom, Constitutional boundaries are in no way tied to Christian theology*. (I dare someone to try and prove me wrong.)
Furthermore, Constitutional boundaries aren't a so clear.




* The Declaration of Independence does have some basis in Christian values, but that's not a document that controls our government.

 

[PistolBob]

My advice, spend some time this summer canning food.

 

[historian]

Could you expound on this for my own edification?

Yeah. Was it right for Christians to oppose the civil government on Jim Crow? Was it right for them to commit crime?

Despite the conventional wisdom, Constitutional boundaries are in no way tied to Christian theology*. (I dare someone to try and prove me wrong.)
Furthermore, Constitutional boundaries aren't a so clear.




* The Declaration of Independence does have some basis in Christian values, but that's not a document that controls our government.

If a duly elected government were to, say, pass a law (that somehow survived legal challenges) that required you to do something that violates the Constitution, what would you, as both a Christian and an American, do?

In the time of Paul, Nero WAS the government, now, thanks in large part to Christianity, we have these weird, liberal democracies which means that the governments are, "By the people."

 

[T.Lex]

If a duly elected government were to, say, pass a law (that somehow survived legal challenges) that required you to do something that violates the Constitution, what would you, as both a Christian and an American, do?

Like return runaway slaves?

Many Christian abolitionists just refused to follow those laws.

Or stop making and selling whiskey? My forebears didn't pay much attention to those laws. (Ok, I'm not sure of the connection to religion there, except that they were Irish.)

Point being, Americans have a long tradition of ignoring laws that they don't like, sometimes with tacit approval of the local authorities. I don't see that changing.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yeah. Was it right for Christians to oppose the civil government on Jim Crow? Was it right for them to commit crime?

Being too young, I don't know what Christians did. That's really my question, what was done?


Beyond Rosa Parks sitting the front, what was being done? What was being said and done in churches?


I think a more clear cut example would be to look farther back at abolitionist and the underground railroad. There, we see a case of what, in the eyes of the law, was theft.



EDIT: just scrolled and saw T.Lex beat me...


Here's my take: If you're going to openly defy authority, then you better have clear Biblical authority, and be able to articulate why disobedience is absolutely necessary. And that means more than just reading and coming to a conclusion. I'd argue that a consensus is necessary, i.e. talking to other Christians, and elders.

I'm going to argue that if situation req. disobedience involves you, not others, then there's a good chance you're in the wrong. If you catch yourself saying "me" or "my", think long and hard if this situation is about you or Christ.

 

[NKBJ]

My advice, spend some time this summer canning food.

Good advice.

 

[JettaKnight]

If a duly elected government were to, say, pass a law (that somehow survived legal challenges) that required you to do something that violates the Constitution, what would you, as both a Christian and an American, do?

In the time of Paul, Nero WAS the government, now, thanks in large part to Christianity, we have these weird, liberal democracies which means that the governments are, "By the people."

That's not exactly a Christian matter, but I see your point: Is our authority to the laws being written, or to the document framing the nation?

My opinion (which is probably unpopular 'round these parts), is they are one and the same for all intents and purposes.


The problem with all this, "That's unconstitutional!" jabber is that the Constitution was intentionally malleable so our young country had room to grow.
The Constitution spells out who's in charge, and how laws are formed, does it not?
So then, that law, which survives legal challenges, would be law in line with the Constitution, would it not?


If the answer really is "no", then your government is screwed up and all bets are off. But, chances are the answer is really "yes" and you just don't like the law.




And see my point above about self-interest. In almost every case, the person claiming "that's unconstitutional!", has a self-interest in it. Why is that? Which, if you're not a Christian, sure that's fine, but it doesn't fit a Christ-centered life.