Introduction
I know that it is the fifth of July, but the principles we were talking about yesterday have not gone away.
Some discussion online yesterday made me realize that a brief history lesson was in order, followed by just a few contemporary applications. For Christians particularly, how does the American War for Independence comport with Paul’s injunction to submit to the established authorities (Rom. 13:1-7)? Here’s how.
A Brief History Lesson
I will illustrate this first, and describe it second.
Suppose you live in Montana, and one day you get a tax bill in the mail from the tax collector in Pennsylvania. You have never been to Pennsylvania and have absolutely nothing to do with that fine state. You are about to round file that bill when a friend stops you. He says, “Wait. Aren’t you supposed to obey the existing authorities?” You say, “This is either a mistake, in which case they won’t care, or it is a ludicrous power grab, in which case I don’t care.” You go ahead and round file that tax bill, not because you are defying the existing authorities, but rather because they are not your existing authorities. That is the principle.
The American colonies started being settled in earnest in the 17th century. As they were being settled, a particular legal and constitutional relationship was set up between them and the crown. In the British constitution, with regard to England, the crown was the executive power, and Parliament the legislative in England only. This meant that when the crown established the colonies, they were each established with their own legislative bodies. The House of Burgesses in Virginia and Parliament in England bore the same relationship to one another as the legislature of Montana and the legislature of Pennsylvania do. Parliament had absolutely nothing to do with Virginia, as in “no authority.” The crown had authority, not Parliament.
But as a result of some interesting developments in England during that century and the next, the power relationship between the crown and Parliament was transformed. First came the English Civil War, in which the armies of Parliament overthrew and then executed Charles the First. (At least we colonials didn’t chop off the king’s head, Parliament.) Cromwell ruled as the Lord Protector for a few years, and then his son ruled ineffectually for a short time, and then the monarchy was restored under Charles II. Then came the feckless James II, who was run out of Dodge in 1688 in what became known as the Bloodless Revolution or the Glorious Revolution. William and Mary were settled on the throne by Parliament early in 1689, but as you can see from the foregoing, the power of Parliament had increased greatly, and the authority of the crown had been greatly diminished. Parliament had chopped off one monarch’s head, and had deposed another.
In the meantime, the colonies were going along, minding their own business, using their own legislatures, assuming that everything was as it had been. The Atlantic is pretty big, and was even bigger then. There had been a legal revolution in the mother country (a couple of legal revolutions, actually), but in the colonies, everything was still the same. But in England, Parliament had assumed (or so they assumed) many of the prerogatives of the crown.
When Parliament started to tax the colonies, from the perspective of the colonies, who had their own taxing bodies, their own legislatures, this was a grotesque usurpation. The taxes levied were not resisted because of the level of taxation, or because of what was taxed, but rather because the whole thing was unconstitutional and out of order. The cry “no taxation without representation” was an appeal to the fact that Parliament had no legal authority to tax Englishmen who were not represented in Parliament. This was a principle of the law. The colonies had their own representative bodies, and those bodies, according to the law, had the exclusive power to tax. In short, the colonials were fighting to uphold the British constitution, which had been disrupted and unsettled in England by revolutionary forces, but not yet here.
Consequently, when the colonials went to war over it, they were doing so as counter-revolutionaries. They were the conservatives. This is why Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, supported the Americans — and opposed the French revolution, root and branch, from the very beginning. He saw that the revolution in France was a new spirit unleashed upon the world, and he was right. From the French revolution to the Russian revolution, over the course of the 19th century, with a little extra on each side, a spirit of bloodlust was set loose. It has murdered its millions.
But the American War for Independence had no part of this. Those who fought for Virginia, and Maryland, and Massachusetts, etc. were fighting under the authority they had lived under for their entire lives, and which had been established by God (Rom. 13:1-7). They were fighting for the established authorities.
One more thing. If you look over the Declaration, you will notice that all the complaints are directed at the crown. Parliament is not mentioned. This is because we had nothing to do with Parliament. And our complaint against the crown was that he was not discharging his office, in that he was not protecting us from a usurping Parliament. In the old feudal code, you had a lord and you had vassals. The vassals owed allegiance to the lord, and the lord owed protection to the vassals. If that covenant was broken by either party, as it was in this instance by the crown, the deal was off.
A Statement of the Larger Problem
So what is necessary when those who have been entrusted with execution of the laws, and protection of the Constitution, show nothing but contempt for the rule of law? What happens when men holding office show contempt for the established authority?
I trust you see the problem. The modern Christian propensity to go along with whatever some criminal in office says is the law is actually toleration of his contempt for Romans 13:1-7, and is therefore connivance with his contempt for it. We misinterpret that passage in order to make it a cloak for our cowardice. This is bad news for some — what they thought a text to justify keeping their head down might turn out upon examination to be a text that requires growing a backbone.
When their usurpations started, there were legal subtleties and high altitude casuistry involved. Some farmer on the other side of the continent couldn’t grow a crop on his own land to feed the livestock on his own land because the weather that rained on his crop came in from over another state, and that was defined as part of “interstate commerce.” I exaggerate, but not by much. But now we have now gotten to the point where all our legal brains can’t understand what a human baby is, and cannot even comprehend the distinction between men and women. They are on the threshold of decreeing that triangles will now have four corners, that water will flow uphill so as to make it easier on everybody, and the minimum wage will be determined by our new offices located in the Big Rock Candy Mountains.
The natives really are restless, and it is past time for an intervention.
Brexit, Prolegomena to Texit
Secession is not revolution. As was just demonstrated by the British people, secession is a lawful and non-violent means of fighting the global revolution. It is a way to defend the existing authority. You cannot defend the existing authorities without resisting the encroaching authorities.
I live under a defined authority, the existing authority, of the Idaho Constitution. So what am I to do with this?
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary” (Idaho Constitution, Art. I/Sec. 11).
In the opinion of this citizen, it is long past necessary. To submit to this authority is not to resist it, but rather to simply believe what it says. But it might involve resisting somebody. This is heightened by the fact that I don’t want to alter, reform or abolish the existing authority — I want to alter, reform and abolish the revolution that is in process.
At the same time, I am not rushing to man the barricades. I would much prefer other measures first. But the two major political parties are offering us a choice between a felon and a clown. Scalia dies and is hustled through the funeral to the grave without an autopsy. Planned Parenthood apparently weathered all the disastrous revelations about their ghoulishness with their funding intact. Obergefell on us.
I mentioned other measures. I could wish, for example, that a coalition of the normal might organize a strike for some day this coming September, after school is in session. In every place that has gone rainbowy, so to speak, corporations, government schools, government offices, we could all call in “sick at heart.” If intractable forces are at work, and they are, to refuse such lesser measures simply makes the greater measures inevitable, and more complicated when they come.
A Concluding Caution
This is a fallen world, and so it must be emphasized that fools can secede from the wise, as well as vice versa, and can certainly turn their locale into a hellhole. If Massachusetts were to secede from the Union, I have little doubt they could create their very own Venezuela in no time. Local is not automatically better. So having gotten free of the EU, the UK might starting making their very own homegrown difficulties. Idiot regulations can originate in London as well as Brussels. But when they do, those who are being abused have a better shot at obtaining redress of their grievances. Not a perfect shot, but a better shot.
Excellent word!
I would appreciate your advice on material to learn about this time in our history. I find I get lost in obviously bad material when I try to research this topic. Where should someone start to enter/understand this conversation truly?
Try Gary North and RJ Rushdoony and American Vision and James B Jordan, all great authors on our history.
This is why immigration is aggressively pushed by those in power. Most I,migrants will support the tyrants. Gun control etc.
“A better shot.” Now now.
How can you talk about Parliament, and not talk about Funkadelic ?
????
Pastor Funkenstein
This arguably wasn’t true after 1649 and certainly wasn’t the case after 1688. The American revolutionaries were basically the 18th-century equivalents of black-helicopter conspiracy theorists and “sovereign citizen” types, making up plausible-sounding legal and historical narratives that suited their desires but weren’t rooted in reality.
The English civil war, the American Revolution and the U.S. Civil war have many similarities, among them, the Puritans beating the Caviliers.
Expect krycheck2 to come along soon and posit that all the good parts were due to the enlightenment , and all the bad parts on someone else .
Yes. This is why it’s laughable to call the French Revolution bad and the American Revolution good.
Ashv, A Tale of Two Cities provides a different prospective on that matter and while fiction it showed the difference quite well. The bloodshed of the French Revolution was bad and there is no way around that fact.
Those who say the American Revolution was bad used to be called Tories and now are called Social Justice Warriors.
Your history is seriously confused — the SJWs are the descendants of the Puritans via Unitarians. There is no meaningful cultural or political continuation of the Loyalists/Tories.
Both worship the state, though.
Ludicrous. You know nothing of actual Loyalist beliefs or opinions.
Because after the American Revolution, thousands of people were executed on trumped-up charges, in the name of the revolution.
They weren’t identical. But they were inspired by the same spirit of rebellion.
Begging the question. The difference in how government was established and the people’s rights were respected is a possible indicator of how they were not “the same” spirit.
If they were so different, why was Jefferson, Mr Declaration of Independence himself, so enthused about the French Revolution when it started, and why did the French revolutionaries proclaim the American revolution as their inspiration and encouragement?
One might put this down to a difference in temperament between Englishmen and Frenchmen. It took eight decades for the tyranny and bloodshed to come to a head in America, the hot-blooded French did it in two.
One might also put ashv’s argument down to “guilt by association”.
I think one of those rebellions “smells like teen spirit”, …..or worse! ; – )
ashv wrote:
This from the guy who posits a return to monarchy, and regards inalienable-rights, consent-of-the-governed, and freedom-of-association to be failed experiments, or worse.
Yes? Why would I approve of either of these rebellions?
“But the American War for Independence had no part of this. Those who fought for Virginia, and Maryland, and Massachusetts, etc. were fighting under the authority they had lived under for their entire lives, and which had been established by God (Rom. 13:1-7). They were fighting for the established authorities.” This seems a stretch to me – invoking Rom 13 to defend the Revolution. No doubt, there was wrong-doing committed on the part of parliament as well as the crown, as you well outlined. But to argue that Rom 13 implores us to meet that wrong-doing with violence and bloodshed… Read more »
About that bloodshed, Nate. The South pulled out of the Union, set up the CSA, and while preserving the right to own slaves ended the slave trade with the North and with other countries. They did all this without bloodshed, as was their intent…and they would have ended slavery altogether without war had the Abolitionists not gotten their panties in such a wad. Blood was shed when the flustered North took aggressive and war-like actions against their Southern brothers, and regardless of who fired the first shot, the States in the CSA were defending their country against foreign invasion. Definitely… Read more »
I don’t disagree with your synopsis of the root causes of the Civil War. My comment regarding the war was, I guess, overly simplistic and maybe too brief. Within a generation after the war, tractors were becoming common-place. I think that technological innovation alone would have ended slavery and the war could have been prevented, had cooler heads prevailed. I think fighting against slavery is a good thing to fight against, and we should take it easy on the abolitionists 150 years later, being sympathetic to their cause if not their tactics. But I dont see a biblical basis for… Read more »
The abolitionists’ cause was based on a radically unbiblical understanding of man and the world.
There are righteous reasons to kill. In those cases, not killing is unrighteous. We need to know what those conditions are. I believe we are going to need that particular skill of discernment, given the clouds on the horizon.
“The South pulled out of the Union, set up the CSA, and while preserving the right to own slaves ended the slave trade with the North and with other countries. They did all this without bloodshed, as was their intent…”
Lies. The Confederacy attacked the Union Ft. Sumter, thus beginning the war.
n8, look at the bloodshed with American abortion. That was not the law of the land and our good Christian brothers — especially those in the Southern Baptist Convention — turned their backs on the blood of innocents and did not fight. If the SBC alone had passed a measure stating that abortion was murder Roe v Wade would not have fallen the way it did. In the case of the American Revolution, the Christians stood for what was right and did not start shooting until the British troops forced the issue. So yes, Romans 13 was appropriate in that… Read more »
“The Christians” stood for what was right? Which side are you calling non-Christian? (Hint: which side was led by people who didn’t observe the Lord’s Supper?)
Appreciate Ash’s brief remark. I wasnt around back in ’73. The SBC response to abortion seems appropriate at this point, at least in the right direction. Some would say it isnt extreme enough. Some would say it isnt extreme enough until we are shooting at elected officials. That’s my beef. I’m not saying abortion is right and should be accepted (in fact I hadn’t mentioned abortion at all). I’m just saying invoking Rom 13 to say that we should violently turn against our government seems to be an inappropriate hermeneutic. I wasnt around further back in ’76 either. I’m not… Read more »
The SBC response to abortion in the late 60s and early 70s was abominable because they went hook, line and sinker for the humanistic line that abortion is A-OK rather than taking the Biblical stance that abortion is murder. It was not an appropriate response at all. The point about the war was that Lincoln was tied into a northern railroad and made money on the side because of it. The Southern states paid tariffs which were supposed to be equally distributed to improve infrastructure both north and south however the tariffs were used primarily to fund work in the… Read more »
Wow. Back at you.
I didnt mean the ’73 response was appropriate. I mean their current stance is. The SBC got pretty liberal for a while. I wasnt around at the time, not that the conservative resurgence has anything to do with me.
I think we’re way off track on the Civil War thing. The point is not whose fault the war was or who profited or what tarifs were inappropriate. The point was that killing people in response was inappropriate. I ain’t no carpetbagger. But neither am I chafing at the bit to go kill me some Yankees.
Right. My point was that if Christians did what they should have done in the 1860s the Civil War wouldn’t have occurred. Their influence would have prevented Lincoln from starting the shooting.
If Christians today stood up at the gate proclaiming Christ we would not be burdened by the evil that surrounds us. Instead today’s Christians are afraid and unwilling to do what we are commanded to do. The result is the evil that runs throughout America.
First shipment of “TEXIT!” bumper stickers arrive today!
Yay!!
This weekend while re-reading the Declaration of Independence, I was particularly struck by this section which focuses on man’s natural inclination to be content with the status quo. However, when the gov “evinces a design” to reduce a people under absolute despotism, it is their ** duty ** to throw off such government. “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.… Read more »
The problem is that there was no “design to reduce a people under absolute despotism”. There were pamphleteers promoting a conspiracy theory about the British government planning to make non-Church of England churches illegal. No such plan existed.
Do you agree with the statement? I.e., If there is a plan, it is their duty to throw off such Government.
Does it matter? There wasn’t. British rule was extraordinarily lax by the standards of the day, but the American revolutionaries apparently had no capacity for patience or gratitude.
Yes – it matters. Your argument is that historically there was no plan. Ok. The truth or falsity of this claim can be established by a simple study of history. The main point of Doug’s post that I am interested in is his argument that circumstances are bad enough *today* that action is needed. So, the question remains, do you, or does anyone, agree with the statement? I.e. “if there is a plan, it the duty of the citizenry to throw off the Government.” If a person answers yes, then there is debate on the question of whether or not… Read more »
The question is based on false assumptions. Governments do not change as a result of action from below. Rebellions and revolutions succeed because someone who already has power recruits the revolutionaries to attack his opponents. To talk of “throwing off the government” is to ignore that the primary conflict is between existing elite factions. The American revolution was no exception to this rule.
ashv wrote:
… Said the cynic. Recall the Gospel of Christ, and Rome.
On the other hand, God (and therefore the gosple) is above rome.
The apostles did not conquer without power from above, obviously. :)
The apostles were turning the whole world upside down with a foolish message preached. God would have it so, because His power is made known through our weakness.
The issue is whether we will retreat to cynicism when faced with tyranny, or whether we will keep discipling the nations (culture) to Christ. Will we believe, contrary to ashv, that governments do change as a result of Gospel action from below?
Name two examples of this occurring.
Would you count the role of Solidarity in bringing down the Communist government in Poland?
No, because they received significant assistance from other geopolitical players, not least the USA. They didn’t rise up and throw off the Soviets spontaneously; they were foot soldiers with cover from Soviet opponents.
Isn’t it irrelevant if we have historical examples, since we are explicitly commanded to do this by Christ? (This is not to say that I don’t believe there are examples, but I think the Great Commission is more important than the historical record in terms of what we must obey.)
Explicitly commanded to do what? Overthrow governments via Glorious People’s Revolution?
Explicitly commanded to make disciples of all nations, which will have an effect on government when enough people have converted and are being led by the Holy Spirit. As far as I can tell, katecho was not advocating overthrow, but conversion and change from below.
This is completely outside the scope of our current discussion.
“The apostles were turning the whole world upside down with a foolish
message preached. God would have it so, because His power is made known through our weakness.
The issue is whether we will retreat to cynicism when faced with tyranny, or whether we will keep discipling the nations (culture) to Christ. Will we believe, contrary to ashv, that governments do change as a result of Gospel action from below?”
I’m pretty sure that is exactly what the discussion was about.
St Paul himself preached to Nero with no results.
250 years later Constantine became a Christian and legitimised Christianity in the empire.
Was this because the Christians of his day were better preachers?
1) No, it was not because they were better preachers. It was because God did not choose to use Paul (or anyone) to soften Nero’s wicked heart. 2) To reiterate: Isn’t it the case that whether or not God uses missionaries to immediately/rapidly change a government, we are still required by Christ to make disciples of all nations? And, though it may take time, and may end up with a society with a lot more liberals than you or I might like, doesn’t widespread Christian conversion lead to a society that values virtues and justice more than that same society… Read more »
Yes obviously the Great Commission exists. Katecho chose to misinterpret what I was talking about to sidetrack things.
Here is where Calvinism defeats me. Are you implying that Nero had no responsibility in this? Did God not want Paul to soften Nero’s heart? I will never understand this theology!
Hehe. 1) I am implying that Nero did not choose to hear Paul and bow to Christ. However, as a Calvinist, I am also implying that God created Nero in such a way that he would not have chosen. Calvinism is a kind of determinism (soft or hard is a bit tricky, and I think ultimately a bit more semantic than actual difference), but while I do believe that God determines our actions, this does not remove our responsibility for our sin and refusal to obey and love Him. 2) I believe God has at least two kinds of “wants”… Read more »
“1) I am implying that Nero did not choose to hear Paul and bow to Christ. However, as a Calvinist, I am also implying that God created Nero in such a way that he would not have chosen. ”
Would not or could not?
I believe that when we choose to do something (or choose not to do something), we always do so because of our character. Thus, though there is no person or force constraining us to make that choice, our own character does not allow us to make another choice. In that sense, then, I would say that Nero could not – not because he wanted to and God made him choose something against his desires, but because his desires were desperately wicked, and thus he could not choose to obey and love God.
Was it possible for Nero to choose rightly? Could he have repented? In terms of character, do you think there was ever a time that a younger Nero could have said, “I am going down the wrong path and becoming vicious; I will change?”
Was it possible? From the standpoint of “was there a supernatural force that prevented him, against his desires, from choosing the right thing,” yes, it was possible, because I do not believe God usually treats people as puppets (I believe God has the right to do so, since He is our maker, but I don’t recall any instances of it in the Bible. God might sometimes use animals like Balaam’s ass as puppets, though.) From the standpoint of “Nero was born with specific desires and circumstances ordained by God, and the choices he made in life that brought him to… Read more »
I am dense about this, so I do appreciate your patience! You don’t suggest that Nero’s evil desires were given him by God?
Not at all! I appreciate your willingness to listen to my somewhat over-intellectual, hopefully not too arrogant theologizing. :) I do not think that God twisted Nero’s emotions and body against the course of their nature. I don’t fully have the interaction of God and the physical universe “down” or understood – I don’t believe in the classical “God of the gaps,” where things go wrong, and God just tips them so they go right again – but I also don’t believe in a watchmaker God, who just wound up the world and let it rip. But how that actually… Read more »
jillybean wrote:
God sovereignly ordained that Nero would be fully responsible for his choices.
Just because God ordains choices it does not mean that we are not accountable creatures making real choices. We make our choices for our own sufficient reasons, all according to what God ordained to come to pass. It is not as if we can even exercise our freedom, at the last minute, to outguess God. It’s all factored in, and part of His plan for history, even our free choices. God is that sovereign.
So does divine sovereignty operate like a writer plotting a novel? Jane Austen determines that Marianne will marry Colonel Brandon, but in the world of the novel, either of them could have decided not to. Their choices seem unlimited to us as the novel unfolds, but when we look at the work as a whole, their choices are completely preordained. Whereas I think I see it more like watching a hockey game on tape delay where I already know which team wins. I know who wins, but I don’t cause that team to score the tie-breaking goal. I don’t mean… Read more »
Don’t worry Jilly, while there are legit Calvinists around here, there is at least one Hobbesian! ; – ) It’s just that for this particular Hobbesian, my go to Sovereign is God! ;-) “Watterson was creating names for the characters in his comic strip, he decided upon Calvin (after the Protestant reformer John Calvin) and Hobbes (after the social philosopher Thomas Hobbes), allegedly as a “tip of the hat” to the political science department at Kenyon. In The Complete Calvin and Hobbes, Watterson stated that Calvin is named for “a 16th-century theologian who believed in predestination,” and Hobbes for “a… Read more »
I kind of like Hobbes. “Nasty, brutish, and short!”
I wonder if he said this:
“Leisure is the mother of philosophy.”
before that?! ; – )
It was because there were more of them.
“Will we believe, contrary to ashv, that governments do change as a result of Gospel action from below?”
I don’t think ashv or anyone else is denying that gosple action changes government.
Regarding whether there was a “design to reduce a people under absolute despotism”, see the Intolerable Acts of 1774, and Parliamentary Sovereignty. It’s helpful to realize that ashv is coming from a position that rejects consent of the governed. He has posited a return to monarchy as a result. Ashv rightly rejects the mob rule of direct democracy, but this causes him to react toward monarchy, rather than understand the merit of a republic. Ashv rightly rejects entitlement mentality, but he reacts to this by denigrating the entire sphere of civil rights, rather than understand the principle of inalienable rights… Read more »
The “intolerable” Coercive Acts were harsh but not unreasonable responses to the terrorist threat posed by the Massachusetts gang.
Parliamentary sovereignty had been an accomplished fact for a hundred years beforehand.
The best way to understand the British relationship to the American colonies at the time is to look at the American relationship to the Vietnam war — two factions within a government fighting each other via proxies on the other side of an ocean.
“But now we have now gotten” why the two “nows”? The sentence confused me. I think the principle of Romans 13 can’t be made absolute, even if it is the correct legislative power. Certainly Romans 13 means governments have the right to take life and money from people that, done by anyone else, would be murder or theft. To follow it by saying that the Government has the right to kill whomever they want and take whatever they want and it is neither murder or stealing is absurd. Of course, must people will affirm the former but not see the… Read more »
Try and explain your political rebellion against your lawful government to the apostle Paul. “But…but..they taxed our tea!”
“And when they made it cheaper than smuggled tea, we dumped it in the ocean”
St. Paul was imprisoned, stoned, whipped and eventually executed….for obeying the authorities.
Which he did as an example for other Christians.
The Romans where in the habit of imprisoning, stoning, whipping and executing citizens for being model citizens.
Look at your statement. You are telling me that St. Paul did nothing wrong–he obeyed the authorities–and yet they imprisoned, stoned, whipped and executed him.
You are telling me that St. Paul was executed for obeying Roman law.
Do you not see the problem with your interpretation?
Acts 5:28-30
28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.
Your point is exceedingly obscure. You’re trying to draw a parallel between violent rebellion over trifles to patient obedience under severe punishment?
No.
My point is that the Romans where not in the habit of jailing innocent citizens who obeyed the authorities. Therefore, it stands to reason that St. Paul was jailed for something else than being obedient to the Roman authorities.
“Lawful”is the question here. The post here makes the case that the English government at the time, was acting in an unlawful fashion. There was a similar issue during the English civil war, where the king tried to tax inland towns for “ship money”. “In 1628, Charles I, having prorogued Parliament in early summer and after his assent to the Petition of Right, proceeded to levy SHIP MONEY on every county in England without Parliament, issuing writs requiring £173,000 to be returned to the exchequer. This was the first occasion when the demand for ship-money aroused serious opposition, in view… Read more »
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s… Read more »
You did not touch the “lawful vs. unlawful” question. If you are talking about the French and Indian war, George Washington was not sitting home at mt. Vernon eating bon bons, he was out fighting as well.
“You sure didn’t mind”?
Hey, I’m old, but I’m not that old !????
It seems clear that Paul was referencing the authorities that were in power at the time, not some political theory that emphasizes local control and the right of the individual to representation.
I doubt Paul would have argued, for example, for the Christians to rise up in rebellion every time a new emperor took power in an illegal way.
“For there is no authority except that which God has established.”
That “seems” pretty universal to me.
And seems to match OT statements about other authorities.
Yes?
Wouldn’t that make Doug’s post a incorrect then? He appeals to what he thinks the government should be as a justification for not obeying actual authorities.
John, you were created, aka “established” by God.
“Authorities” are established by God.
If you, or any authority, is acting in an unlawful fashion, I don’t have to obey you, or any authority, just because you were created by God.
Where governments are ungodly, and unlawful, we don’t have to obey them.
Does anyone besides God have perfect law?????
Was the caesar acting in an “unlawful fashion?” Because Paul told people to obey his authority.
J’, it would help if you were more precise in your diction. Paul, speaking and writing the revealed Word of God, informs people to obey God’s authority first, and earthly authority that comports with God’s authority, after that. God Himself says the following re: caesar: Mark 12:17 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) 17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” The men were amazed at what Jesus said. If “caesar” or an eathly authority, asks things of us, that belong to God, we are not to give to caesar,… Read more »
I’m talking more about Romans 13. He’s clearly referring to the Roman authorities because he specifies taxes as an example of the kind of obeying of authority that he’s talking about, and Rome was who they would have been paying taxes to. I’ve clearly said that I don’t believe the Bible calls us to obey the governing authorities in contradiction to God, but that’s not the topic of this article. Douglas specifically references things like the revolution against the UK because the parliament went against the agreement between the crown and the colonies. From what I can tell, the colonies… Read more »
So Wilson’s position seems to be that both the Crown and Parliament were unjustly exceeding their charter with regard to the American Colonies. The Charter its’ self defines the established authority for all parties. The Colonies did not want to “give to caesar” what was not “caesar’s”. “Parliament had no legal authority to tax Englishmen who were not represented in Parliament. This was a principle of the law.” The Colonies then had no responsible authority to appeal to, beyond God’s and their own. Presumably many Colonists inquired of the Lord at the time, took the course that they did, and… Read more »
… and the people Paul was writing to had no representation at all in their government. So, clearly, representation is not some basic governmental right that Christians should fight for.
Also, I think it’s dangerous to assume that people’s actions were right based on the blessings they are given as a nation. The Roman empire was clearly not based on God’s law, but still prospered for a very long time.
J’, stop being silly. In “ROMANS” 13, Paul was initially writing to Romans. Paul himself was a Roman citizen, and represented himself before Caesar. The best governments are governments of laws, not men. If citizenship and representation are lawful, then they are rights. This comports with our representative and advocate, The Lord Jesus Christ, who advocates for us before The Father. Obedience and blessing comport, though the timing is God’s. The Roman Empire was God’s servant, and it lasted as long as God wanted it to last. In like fashion, there are limits on how long you and I will… Read more »
I fully agree that the best governments are those of laws and not men, but I don’t see the Bible commanding people to obey what they consider to be the idealized “best government.” He called them to obey the actual real authorities that were over them at the time, even though that authority was dictatorial, oppressive, pagan, etc.
Again, God Himself said to render to Caesar what is Caesars and to God, what is Gods.
If earthly “authority” requires us to disobey God, we obey God, not the earthly authority.
Daniel obeyed the speed limit, but would not bow to a monarch who insisted that he was “god”.????????
So when the one Caesar illegally took power (like a large number of them did) the Christians would have had the responsibility to revolt against it?
The law or charter is the authority , not the individual “Caesar “.
If a “Caesar ” is lawless, that is a reason to oppose him, it might be a responsibility to oppose him as well.
How much responsibility do you take to enforce the law?
Care to make a citizens arrest of Hillary?????????
So, you agree that, based on Doug’s argument, Christians in Rome would have had the moral responsibility to forcefully revolt against a Caesar who took power in opposition to the laws of Rome?
Again, think Daniel, and think God. Daniel, in a godly fashion, served a pagan King, as Daniel served God, at the same time. That was what God ordained. Daniel would not give to that “Caesar” what was not his.
Revolt is not the only godly response to a law breaking Caesar.
For instance, some people make fun of law breaking “authorities” on blogs!????????????
Doug said: “At the same time, I am not rushing to man the barricades. I would much prefer other measures first. ”
The assumption here is that if those other measures don’t work, then he WOULD go to the barricade. The conclusion made by Doug is that violent revolt is the natural conclusion to authorities who go against God’s law.
Violent revolt, or physical self-defense?
You only need to defend if you first revolt.
Really? So when they come to take your children, than can only be because you “first revolted”?
This article is clearly not talking about the government taking your children. Also, I’ve already said that there’s a difference between defending your family against specific violence against their person’s and revolting against generalized evil in government.
I think this is a crucial distinction that is not often drawn when people start talking about resistance. It seems to me that while a Christian is entitled to resist violence against himself and his family, he is not usually entitled to initiate deadly force against government employees or evil people. Otherwise, why does Doug say we may not use force against abortion doctors?
It is “a” conclusion. You are saying it is “natural”. I bet Doug would pray about it first. Not to mention, God is real, and takes care of most of these problems for us!
For instance, the US was ready to fight the Soviets, but we did not have to.
By Providence, they crapped out on their own!
“Natural” was the wrong word. I should have used the words “morally necessary” instead.
This is where I totally disagree. Paul was writing to a people who were under an ungodly government in authority over them (Rome) and his command was to obey them, to not incur their wrath, and that they were chosen by God. He did not say to revolt or succeed and forcefully defend your succession.
Whether God takes care of his people doesn’t excuse us from making individual choices.
J’, this issue is about what The Word says, not just the parts of The Word that Paul wrote . “Rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” is a pretty broad principle. I don’t think it precludes the use of force in extreme circumstances, you may think otherwise. Do keep in mind that the American Revolution was a grand child of the English civil war, where the monarch in question was forceful acting against freedom of worship. That was one reason why that war happened. In both of these conflicts the military actions of the… Read more »
I think Romans 13 is much more applicable and clear when it comes to this discussion. It goes beyond the idea of “giving to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” It states to: 1) Be in subjection to governing authorities, all of which are established by God 2) All who resist that authority receives condemnation. These commands are summed up in the phrase: “Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” Note also, that the end of chapter 12 speaks about loving those who… Read more »
Hebrews 11 32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that… Read more »
I don’t see any examples of people who conquered or fought without being directly told by God to do so. In fact, all those listed after the new covenant were martyrs.
J’, the issue is faithfulness, not old or new covenant.
No one was “listed” after Samuel.
“all those listed after the new covenant were martyrs.” ???
Receiving back your dead, jeers, wearing skins, etc. are hardships not martyrdoms.
Finally, does God CC you on His directives to our contemporaries?
My copies must be in the mail! ; – )
Ok, I should have said all those after the new covenant were people who suffered under oppression.
The point is that those in the past who are praised for conquering and defeating armies were directly instructed by God to do those things for specific purposes, like establishing the nation of the Jews and protecting it from being conquered. They were not generalized commands or directives.
Like this one? ; – )
Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Seems like everybody got this memo!
I’m not sure what your point is. To act justly and love mercy isn’t at all the same thing as saying that we should revolt against a government that doesn’t act justly and love mercy.
Why not? For instance ISIS is saying they are the government of Kurdish Christian areas. Those Christians could “wash the feet” of ISIS, yet since ISIS is so criminal, using leathal force to stop them would be a Just thing to do, more so than washing the feet of ISIS.
And it would be showing mercy (and therefore tangibly loving mercy) toward those whom ISIS would (and does) slaughter, given the chance.
FWIW, “Kurdish” and “Christian” have minimal overlap, as the Kurds are by and large Muslim, though there have historically been more Arab Christians in Kurdish areas because the Kurds have generally been more tolerant.
Wikipedia says much the same!
Why not? Because Paul directly told people under a government that wasn’t just or merciful to be subject to them.
“If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.”
J’, there are extreme circumstances where it is not possible, nor Just, to live peaceably with evil people or an evil government.
If a if a person or government does evil to us, we are not obligated to obey evil.
You seemed to have skipped the other parts of that command. He also says to bless those who persecute you.
I would differentiate between people coming into your house to attack your family and generally evil policies by the government. A Biblical example might be the Jews in Egypt when the pharaoh called for all male babies to be killed. They resisted the evil command by lying to pharaoh and keeping the children alive, but they did not try to revolt against pharaoh.
J’, relax. It’s OK to hate what is evil. It’s OK to cling to what is good!
It’s Ok to do justice, against both sinful and criminal events. It’s Ok for us to bear the sword, as much as it’s OK for the government to bear the sword . Good people and good governments would rather not , but there are instances where the use of force is a just and good thing. We probably only differ on where that point is .
Where does it say that it’s OK for us to bear the sword for non-self defense purposes? Generally, the Bible calls God’s word our sword.
Godly people, in a God honoring government, may bear the sword as a God honoring government does.
Romans 13.
Yes, but that definitely doesn’t apply to all the Godly people who are not in government. I have no problem with a Christian government official using the sword of government to do good.
So getting back to this post, Colonial American Government was a legitimate chartered and somewhat autonomous government. A fairly “Christian” government as well. When the crown and parliament violated their charter obligations, the American government defended its self from the British government, and came away, as a fully autonomous nation.
In my experience, Godly autonomy and authority begins with individual, godly people. It then forms friendships, churches, marriages, families, societies and nations.
It is a rare possibility, that my own authority would be higher than that of the government, but I do allow that there is a rare possibility.
It doesn’t appear that Jael’s tent peg activity was under direct command from God and it appears that she was resisting authority with violence.
As a note, tent pegs aren’t violent by nature.
She also killed a person that God had told people to attack and kill.
A more pertinent example might be David who wouldn’t kill Saul even though it would have been in self-defense because Saul was God’s appointed authority over him as king.
Yes, that is correct. Sisera, as a Canaanite warlord, was under the ban that extended back to Moses and had never been revoked.
“The point is that those in the past who are praised for conquering and
defeating armies were directly instructed by God to do those things for
specific purposes. . .” John
The point is that it was a general instruction not a specifically directed order as you previously maintained. Hmmmmmm. So we are allowed to follow God’s general orders to stand up for Godly ways with violence if necessary.
I honestly don’t understand the point you’re making.
The heroes of the old testament were specifically told to kill or attack groups of people for specific purposes. The commands of God to do those things weren’t general commands to all believers for all time.
On the other hand, Paul’s command about being subject to authorities is a general command.
Jael was not part of the 10,000 man army directed by Deborah to attack. She did not have specific orders to kill the evil officials oppressing those who loved God but she used the general instructions found in scripture to resist evil and killed an evil man. Christians are generally and specifically told to resist evil throughout scripture. “Like a trampled spring and a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.” Proverbs 25:26 Christians are called specifically and generally to resist evil at all turns. You are holding onto Romans 13:2 and ignoring the rest… Read more »
By resist evil you seem to mean, take action against evil in the world. Can you point out where in the scripture you see Christians, specifically, being told to do that? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
John, the entirety of scripture tells us to resist evil at all levels.
If you don’t resist evil, what is the point of your life?
If you don’t resist evil, what differentiates you from the pagans who live good lives and don’t murder?
If you aren’t called to resist evil, what are you supposed to do?
Dave, if the entirety of scripture tells to resist evil at all levels – and again, you seem to mean act against evil – then we should be able to point to where scripture specifically says things to that effect. When we consider the point of our life I think the focus would be on God, and there are different ways we could put it – fear God and keep His commandments, glorify God, bear His image, love Him, serve Him. If we do take action against whatever we understand to be evil, what differentiates us from all the pagans… Read more »
Can you give me an example verse from the New Testament that would expand beyond the individual or the context of within the church?
God’s people in the Old Testament were specifically and corporately told to destroy the peoples of Canaan. It was seen as a duty of the people, not just the armies or the commanders. So Jael was acting under a general command concerning specific enemies, but the command was made a group she was included in, that we are not. It was not a general command for all time to “kill the enemies of God,” it was a specific command to Israel in general, not all believes in general, to destroy the Canaanites.
I agree completely.
“Finally, does God CC you on His directives to our contemporaries?
My copies must be in the mail! ; – )”
It’d be BCC if anything…. :-)
Hey wait! Are you suggesting that god has a private server? ; – )
Scott, please send $1,000 to me via Christ Church Moscow. Since that is only a small tax, I am sure you will be able to send it right away. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the… Read more »
If those truths were so “self-evident”, why was writing them down such a big deal?
I don’t care for the “self-evident” phrasing either, but it should not escape our notice that they immediately go on to acknowledge the Creator as the authority behind these unalienable rights. That is quite significant since they placed these rights outside of the jurisdiction of meddling rulers. Rulers are simply charged with securing the rights that already exist.
Because the colonists didn’t have the internet or TV and were unable to communicate by meme or sound bite.
My point is that if they’re self-evident they don’t need communication.
The entire universe shouts God’s creation and is self evident. Yet, we still need good preaching.
“It is self-evident that men and women are not the same” of late, while self-evident, needs communicating.
Given the stupidity of sin, I think we can cut the Founders some slack for their language in that they where probably* a better people than we are.
*I don’t know this, I have a D.C. education, I have been propagandized, not educated.
I will freely grant that our forebears were better people than we are.
Another way to read “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is “We don’t feel like discussing the reasons we believe these things”. The distinction between men and women is witnessed forthrightly by both nature and Scripture, unlike the proposition that all men are created equal.
Another way to read “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is “We
don’t feel like discussing the reasons we believe these things”
Yes, it is. But that describes Christian Johnathan or the atheist EtR evading reality…
It also describes cowardice.
My founders where not cowards. Yours? (:
Assume their presuppositions…. In theirs, “Created Equal” is spot on and means “In Christ” Given other (HBD)presuppositions then “Created Equal” is nonsense. Since we are Christian, we know both and embrace the fullness of what God has given us. We know, also, that He is giving us these “puzzles” (with His usual kick in the nuts) and we also know that He is , in the act of “gathering us” into being like He is. Why are you looking to the past instead of the today? Today is the promise and we have only to be true in it. I… Read more »
Whose presuppositions? Jefferson was certainly no Christian. Given his involvement in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man I see no reason to assume he meant anything orthodox by it.
We have unity and brotherhood in Christ, but those are very different things from equality.
We have unity and brotherhood in Christ, but those are very different things from equality. My starting proposition is that we (we heathen) are all equally damned. My second proposition is that He redeemed us. My third proposition is that in Him we are in Him. The HBD and history stuff is interesting and edifying (He did make us for His pleasure) It is a thing that we, as brothers in Christ get to rejoice in. It seems to me-, //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// (that Molly is on my keyboard)… It seems to me, that “Equality” is a red herring in that “Equality”… Read more »
Agreed. Hence my fevered efforts to drive a wedge between the Gospel and Americanism.
Maybe Doug will write a post answering that some day. Title it something like, I don’t know, “If At First You Don’t Secede . . .”
Nah, probably no point. People would just ignore it and repeat foolishness and the meta’d be a massive waste of time.
But anyway, it’d be a good article. You know, for folks who read it.
Inertia explains a good deal of why we haven’t yet resorted to secession, but I believe it’s indeed coming. I’ve had this discussion with myself and others for years, and while I don’t place the Constitution on the level of holy writ, I nonetheless, like several here, swore on a time to protect and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Sadly, the ordered liberty my ancestors lived under – however imperfectly – back in the British Isles and sought to replicate and improve upon here, has been perverted into something freakish that they would no longer recognize. So,… Read more »
There is an interesting property that helps steel the will; the late Jude Wanniski wrote of it in his Memo on the Margin writings. Change starts at the extremes–a couple of standard deviations out. That is where the action is (and profits are, according to him, my pockets are full of lint). Men and women like you have sensed this day for years; now you see what you know becoming common knowledge. What does this mean? Well…it means you must lead. It means that you know what others (innocent) do not yet know. I think you will concur that the… Read more »
Thanks for the encouragement, Brother Timothy! How I (we) need it! One of my perennial questions at the root of much of my ranting and wondering around here is quite simply What, then, is required of me? I know the general answer summed up in Micah 6:8, but, as Pr. Wilson comes back to constantly, am I reading the “story” I’m in at this moment in history aright? Yes, like you, I’ve sensed this day coming for some years now, and more yet to come! But I confess I’m still as confused in some ways as I’ve ever been, and,… Read more »
Doug, I think this was a strong article and is helpful for those of us trying to move the dial within the conservative Christian culture toward a more decentralizing, authority-questioning mindset. However, I do have one critique, which is that you don’t seem particularly interested in addressing the injustices of the enforcement class. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the federal government has shirked its Romans 13 responsibility (and yes, I am an anarchist, but I’m working within the current mainstream statist paradigm for this discussion) in the ways you mentioned. However, how can you be silent about the fact… Read more »
Are you not under the US government just as much as the Idaho government? It seems like you’re skirting around the real issue in this article.
I understand it to be an appeal to the doctrine of the lesser magistrate.
Where is that found in the Bible? I’m not sure if extra-Biblical political theory is relevant to Paul’s commands. The people Paul were writing to were under an empire-wide despot and were expected to pay taxes to him and obey his laws that didn’t go against clear Biblical teaching.
John, it is not extra Biblical but rather what American Christians should have done for centuries. For example: Working on Sunday clearly goes against the Big 10, yet Christians didn’t stand up when it was first proposed in Congress. Doing your best at your job is what scripture tells us to do, yet Christians don’t. Abortion is clearly murder, yet Christians fell for the mother’s choice talking point. Taking care of the poor is a church responsibility, yet when Johnson proposed the Great Society, Christians fell in line instead of saying no.
How is the church staying silent and/or agreeing about unbiblical actions relevant to what I’ve said? My point is simply that Paul was referring to the authorities over the people in question generally, not some idealized government that correctly governs by God’s standard.
John, you are missing the elephants standing next to you. “The people Paul were writing to were under an empire-wide despot and were expected to pay taxes to him and obey his laws that didn’t go against clear Biblical teaching.” John 1. The US authorities are in place over us. For the most part, right now, our rulers are evil and our laws are evil. 2. American Christians did not resist even the most obvious breaches of God’s law. American Christians did not follow Biblical teaching to follow God’s law and not man’s. 3. Had Christians stood against evil in… Read more »
The Bible doesn’t call us to violently resist ungodly laws. For example, Paul didn’t tell Christians to try and change the emperor worship laws in Rome. He told them to not worship the emperor. Those are very different things.
Also, Christians are the only thing that’s prevented the vast majority of the evil laws in the US from happening far earlier. Who do you think fought against same sex marriage? Who do you think fought against abortion? Etc.
Check your Bible, you may be missing a few books. Yes, you are called to resist. “Our enemies said, “They will not know or see until we come among them, kill them and put a stop to the work.” 12When the Jews who lived near them came and told us ten times, “They will come up against us from every place where you may turn,” 13then I stationed men in the lowest parts of the space behind the wall, the exposed places, and I stationed the people in families with their swords, spears and bows. 14When I saw their fear,… Read more »
That quote from Nehemiah is about the people defending their homeland from foreign invaders. It literally has nothing to do with this topic.
Actually it does have a great deal to do with this topic and is exactly correct and on target. King Artaxerxes was the ruler and authorized the rebuilding of Jerusalem. However, Sanballat and the officials beyond the river did not approve of the King’s orders and plotted to kill the Jews. They were not outsiders or foreign invaders, they were part of the Artaxerxes kingdom and were lesser magistrates NOT doing the King’s will but their own. They attempted to thwart the King’s will and were repulsed by the threat of force. This is the same as our officials in… Read more »
Those other officials were in no way in authority over the people of Jerusalem while the federal government is in authority over us. It’s not comparable. I also don’t think the attackers were all part of the Artaxerxes’ kingdom. Nehemiah mentions the “Arabs” for example.
I’ve also clearly stated that we are not to obey authority that would cause us to do something contradictory to God’s word.
John, they were similar to our state governments. They were lesser magistrates who resisted the King’s laws and instead wanted to eliminate those who worshiped God. The parallel today is quite clear as this same play is acted out in the 50 states.
The Jews were authorized to forcibly resist the unjust actions of the lesser magistrates. That is where we differ.
We’re not talking about California attacking Texas. We’re talking about the Federal government having authority over the states.
We’re talking about the Federal government having authority over the states.
That’s not working out too well is it? That is because it is an illegitimate authority and has ceased to be worthy of the term “authority”.
The loss of legitimacy is directly correlated with the faithlessness of its participants.
Had the “Federal Government” been a Godly government, then we would not be having this conversation. We would be praising God for His gift of the wonderful gift of Godly governance.
Is what way is it illegitimate?
Also, there’s no such thing as a Godly government until we get to Heaven.
John, again you miss the big points and focus on tiny ones. Both Federal and State governments do not follow our US Constitution or the individual state constitutions. The lesser magistrates at all levels of the government ignore our legitimate laws and build new ones out of thin air that prohibit free exercise of Christianity. 1. The Obergefell decision did not ordain homosexual mirage in all 50 states. It said that the laws of the states contesting did not meet Constitutional standards as decided by this court and that they should be reworded. 1.1 The court, a lesser magistrate, failed… Read more »
It sounds to me like you don’t agree with the entire US governmental system that allows for the supreme court to interpret the constitution.
Readers note that you don’t have any examples of our government ruling legitimately, just more critique. The SCOTUS is supposed to decide issues as they relate to the US Constitution. In the past, the SCOTUS made poor decisions and overturned those decisions. In the present, the SCOTUS makes decisions based on factors other than the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they are supposed to do. Our government is corrupt and that is where the rub is. American Christians have abandoned tough scriptural battles in the same manner that you avoid it here. That is why America is… Read more »
I don’t agree with your specific political theory therefore I don’t seem like a Christian… cool.
I’m done. You clearly don’t want to have a friendly and constructive discussion.
John, you kept typing Romans 13 when there are multiple examples in scripture of Christians standing firm against evil governments. The Old Testament works hand in hand with the New Testament. The individual passages throughout the Bible dovetail without blemish. To say “I don’t agree with your specific political theory therefore I don’t seem like a Christian… cool.” is a cop out. I gave examples and scriptural basis for those examples and you didn’t have scripture to back your point up other than a vague reference to Romans 13. You didn’t seem to understand the stories of Old Testament saints… Read more »
and that’s only the Protestants! Don’t get me started on the Catholics!
That’s a very Berean question. God has made the world in such a way that even a totalitarian control freak can’t actually accomplish very widespread rule without delegating power. However, Scripture is explicit in the wisdom of delegation of a hierarchy of powers, for example Jethro, the priest of Midian, instructed Moses: 17 And Moses’ father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. 18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself… Read more »
I get that, but how is it relevant to Paul’s command about obeying authority? The authority over the people in question would have been the emperor. This is even spelled out directly with the conversation with Jesus about paying taxes.
I would suggest re-reading Wilson’s post above to understand the relevance. The civic magistrate is a God-established authority, but it is not absolute. We are to honor the king, and pray for the king, but we are to disobey when any authority requires us to sin, or threatens to bring harm to the civically innocent. Disobedience is one thing, but there is another set of higher standards to determine when to use violent resistance. This raises all sorts of practical questions, such as whether we are guilty if we pay taxes into a corrupt regime that might use those taxes… Read more »
It’s absolutely undeniable that Ceasars was using the tax money to oppress and murder the innocent.
I think John missed my point. God will hold Caesar accountable for what Caesar does with the tax money. Our paying of a tax to him, in itself, does not transfer that guilt back on our head, individually (though we are still part of the nation/empire that may be judged, representatively, by God). However, if the tax itself is a direct and genuine threat to our livelihood, and those we are charged to protect, then we can resist such a tax in self-defense. For example, if paying a heavy tax to Caesar means that my children must go without food… Read more »
… But none of that is relevant to the article.
It is relevant to “Paul’s command about obeying authority”, which is what John asked about.
Paul’s command was not so wide a brush that he painted all Christians into the corner of obeying literally everyone who bears a title. Are American Christians expected, by Paul’s command, to obey the dictates of Kim Jong Ill or Fidel Castro? What about Queen Elizabeth or Joachim Gauck? Are Texan Christians expected to march in lock step with the beat of the governor of New York, or the governor of Alabama? Is my Christian wife expected to obey every husband in existence…or just me? No, we each have very specific authorities that we are expected to obey. The alarming… Read more »
It sounds to me like you’re replacing “governing authorities” with “governing authorities who I like.” According to our system of government the president and the supreme court have some level of authority over the citizens. I get that you don’t like how they’re using that authority, but that’s very different from saying that they don’t have authority when they clearly do.
That’s a very Berean question.
And only a few such as katecho would recognize it as such…..
heck! Timothy cannot even find a proper definition of “Berean” and here timothy watches, mouth agape, dumbfounded, scratching his head….
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. — Acts 5
To my mind that is America…
ashv, you probably differ and will tell me why my conception of my country is incorrect….(:
I would encourage you to read Knox’s Appellations, written in 1558, where the case is well made.
This is my first time on your page. While I take issue with your argument (I appear to be more fond of Cromwell than you), I believe we are long past due for an invocation of the doctrine of lesser magistrates. However, we face three serious problems. First, we lack a lesser magistrate willing to stand up for the principles of your Charter, the Declaration (not the Constitution). Second, we lack a means of organizing and thus overcoming the classic collective action problem faced by any group of individuals not already organized. Finally, we face comments like the one below:… Read more »
The Declaration of Independence wasn’t a “charter”, it was a press release providing spin for the greed of a mob in Massachusetts.
Written mostly by a Virginia Cavilier no less! ; – )
Who knew England in 1776 was so generous?!
I have much to be thankful for from Virginia, but Jefferson is not one of those things.
(England _was_ generous. When Parliament received news of the Americans’ resistance to the Stamp Act, future Prime Minister William Pitt said “I am glad America hath resisted”.)
Well, Dr. “J” was the original Spin Doctor was he not? ; -)
Wow! 6 whole words in a sentence!
How generous is that? ; – )
ashv, that was not a “reply”. It was just you spewing forth your own press release. But I will say this for you. It is rare that I encounter someone who has no actual mind to speak of, just impulses that he (such ill-considered stupidity is rare for a female, not that they can’t be stupid, just not as succinctly) can probably no longer control. But in the future, let’s just agree that you not respond to anything I write, since I tend to just walk around giant piles of emesis. I do not try to reason with them.
Someone’s jimmies got rustled, I see.
Johann — Just wondering if you might have misread the comment you criticized. It’s a compliment to Pastor Wilson’s wordsmithing, and I’m at a loss as to what “elephantine ignorance” you might have discerned in it.
Valerie, my deepest apologies. You are right. I did misread it. I think I am so used to thoughtless comments on other fora re. Obergfell that it did not occur to me that you actually meant it as a compliment. I retract my comment and, again, apologize.
It wasn’t me (I’m too lazy to go back and see who it was), but thanks for taking the time to reread/rethink! :^)
Those of you that accept the American narrative of the revolution: Why was suppression of Shays’ rebellion justified?
I, too, have a problem with that, as well as the violent suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion!
Pastor
Yours is the tougher job. You have to convince and lead a bunch of Christians. I am praying for you in your mission.
I thank God that you are leading as you are.
I’ve been reading ashv’s comments here for quite a while, and I still have absolutely no idea what he’s getting at. Some of his comments are witty and insightful, but if he’s ever said clearly “here’s what should have happened before and why” or “here’s what ought to happen in the future and why”, I missed it.
For a guy who flies the stars and bars. He’s no Lynerd Skynerd is he?????
I can’t say what should or shouldn’t have happened; history is just the data we have to deal with and wishing it had turned out differently is a waste of time. My chief concern is to help people see that the American narrative Wilson repeats in the post above is a convenient myth that ignores a lot of facts and attempts to justify the unjustifiable. In particular, trying to draw a hard line between the American and French revolutions and claim that the former was morally unrelated to the latter is foolishness. This matters for the future because we should… Read more »
While I disagree with you in your overall evaluation regarding our War of Independence Part I (Part II, 1861 – 1865, was unsuccessful, but is perhaps ongoing?), I draw a great deal of wisdom from your urging an honest look at the – shall we say – Standard American Narrative (SAN). What is past is indeed past, and cannot be repeated, of course; the error many of our detractors accuse us of is in fact living in the past. This is obviously impossible, but it serves as a convenient and facile way to belittle and marginalize those of us who… Read more »
Eh, you clearly aren’t one of us (“honour”). The War of Independence was a rebellion against an illicit system of taxation which resulted in tyranny, and was the natural result of the American colonies growing in economic wealth and cultural independence. In other words, it was inevitable. The French Revolution was an anti-traditionalist, anti-religious fit of hysteria which resulted in blood lust and the execution of thousands for purely political reasons. It was not undertaken in order to preserve some long standing social order that had been violated, it was to done to completely change France. This is why the… Read more »
I am proud to not be one of y’all. :-)
The American revolution was no more “inevitable” than the French one; in fact, the American one encouraged the French into action.
In particular I want to encourage Christians to love their people and their place, and to find a different basis for doing so than the ideology and founding myth of Americanism.
So would I. For Christians “their people” of course would be, well, Christians, their place the Kingdom of God, and the “basis for doing so” would be one Lord, one faith, one baptism, which is why just before getting to that point Paul urges Christians to show tolerance for one another in love. Of course the “In particular” part doesn’t necessarily entirely eliminate all other owed affections and loyalties now does it?
I find that ashv tends toward cynicism, and doesn’t really have a lot to offer, constructively. The job of the cynic is easy. Anyone can stir up mud and pour cold water in a half-plausible way. But to give a constructive, consistent explanation of the righteous path is not so easy.
That’s an interesting perspective on Parliament vs. state legislatures, and certainly the form of the Articles of Confederation seems to match that–the federal government being given no tax authority. I had previously contemplated the idea that the complaints lodged against the King in the Declaration of independence were more or less arguing that the King had in effect abdicated by not fulfilling his role as protector; you seem to go a step further.
“Secession is not revolution. As was just demonstrated by the British people, secession is a lawful and non-violent means of fighting the global revolution. It is a way to defend the existing authority. You cannot defend the existing authorities without resisting the encroaching authorities.” Well said, but a couple of things. Firstly, we British may have voted to secede, but it isn’t going to happen. The establishment is in the midst of making that vote null and void as we speak, and Mr John Kerry, Secretary of State for Ensuring Countries Don’t Defy Washington’s Hegemony, came to Downing Street to… Read more »
Our mainstream media in the U.S. doesn’t present this side of the Crimean story of secession.
Yep. It’s like they don’t want it to get out there for some reason :). They also don’t want you to know that those nice folks running the country Crimea seceded from have been busy turning it into one of the grimmest torture capitals of the world:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kiev-allows-torture-and-runs-secret-jails-says-un-vwlcrpsjn
If that became more well known, why people might just begin to see things a little differently.
“So what is necessary when those who have been entrusted with execution of the laws, and protection of the Constitution, show nothing but contempt for the rule of law? What happens when men holding office show contempt for the established authority?” Something that changes this entire argument is that in the US, these are not our leaders, they are our representatives. That’s a bit galling to the pride because I don’t wish to claim most of them either. However, in a democracy such as ours, we the people are the established authority, we are the God appointed leaders, and the… Read more »
Memi thought leads again!????????
ME, America is supposed to be a constitutional republic form of government. A good argument can be made that it is now a fascist form. But there is no way to say that we have representatives beholding to our will.
The Affordable Healthcare Act was passed with over 70% of the voters saying No. The cards, letters, e-mails all went into the trash. Obamacare was only one example of many similar instances in the past few years.
Our representatives really are beholden to our will. They serve at the pleasure of the people who keep putting them into office and allowing them to stay there. So I think the dynamic is different than it was in biblical times. Kings were selected for us, people had little say in the matter. Today we must ask, who is the actual authority?Who are our leaders? It’s us, we the people, and our idiotic neighbors who keep cheering this stuff on.
They are not beholden to anything except power and money. The graft in our political system is overwhelming and will not change anytime soon. When has a Congressional ethics investigation really taken action? Why didn’t Speaker Ryan have the Sergeant at Arms remove the sit in last month? He had full authority to have them physically removed, yet he did nothing. That is a true example of how our political system is bought and paid. Why hasn’t a House or Senate committee placed liars testifying to them in the slammer for contempt? Because they are paid off or someone has… Read more »
I think a key issue here is the word “our.” These are our representatives and while I may be rather fed up with their behavior, I live in an area where perhaps 80% of the people are praising them. These representatives really are following the will of the people, it is just that the people are deeply divided about what our will is.
ME, there is no doubt that many in America want to flee God and want free stuff with no responsibility. On each of the heavy issues, the Christian voice would easily outweigh the pagan one; but, our elected officials sold us out. Years ago, a Colorado representative was opposed by a strong, conservative opponent. He lost in the election, but after the results were posted it was noted that she won by the same percentage every election for previous years. After that term, she resigned. The issue here is that the vote was rigged from the start and until it… Read more »
Well he didn’t say “leaders,” he said “authority.” The established authority in the United States is laid out in the Constitution (as well as various state constitutions being that each fifty state has sovereignty itself as well). Congress has the authority to draft laws, the President has the authority to execute said laws, etc. In no way are we the people the established authority. This is confusion. We are sovereign, with the right of self-determination, yes. Absolutely. As commander in chief, the president is certainly an established leader. As can be the state governors since they serve as the heads… Read more »
Well, I think authority is about who holds the power and the accompanying responsibility that goes with it. Our country was founded on the idea that God holds the authority, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. So while the president may be the leader we selected, he is still our representative, and he still answers to our representatives in congress, and his power is supposed to be mitigated by the supreme court. God is the established authority, which is than handed to the people, who select representatives to serve as leaders. In a situation of… Read more »
Wickard v. Filburn, the death-rattle of federalism.