I wouldn’t normally post up two posts by myself in a day, but since Dave has been out of pocket some today and this post has a “timely” basis for today, here it is. It has been a pretty slow day around anyway thanks to the holiday.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
– Romans 13:1
I daresay that most, if not all, of us are very familiar with this verse. Since our series of discussions about patriotic worship, I have been pondering the unique status that our form of government(I am speaking of America primarily, but other places with representative government would apply as well) places on us in light of these sort of commands from the Bible. I will not pretend to have all of the answers, so I will try and pose some good questions and see what we can come up with together.
Let me start with the most obvious puzzle. Paul tells us that all authority comes from God (Jesus said essentially the same thing to Pilate in John 19:11). If we believe this to be true, how should it color our decisions regarding voting and the people we vote for? Should we only vote for people that we think can “win” or should we vote for those we can support in good conscience? Does it ultimately even matter who we vote for at all?
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. – Romans 13:2
We live in a country that was essentially founded by those who behaved in the complete opposite manner from this verse. We ultimately understand that given a choice between God’s Laws and the laws of man, we must pick God’s Laws every time, yet because we are given the opportunity to change the decisions of the “authorities” under our form of government as well; what do you think our response as believers should be regarding resisting ungodly laws?
3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. – Romans 13:3-4
I saw verse four come up in another discussion around here about the laws of marriage and whether or not the government has the “authority” to pass laws against the Law of God. It is no secret that many issues have arisen in our country that have put these verses to debate. Pastors have been and will be arrested in our country for preaching the Gospel in public. They have found reason to “fear” doing good. But that is nothing compared to the things that were happening to Christian at the time Paul wrote this and also to many of the first readers of this letter. How should we respond when leaders and rulers are a “terror to good conduct”? Paul conclusions might not be the ones I would normally gravitate to in this case:
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience – Romans 13:5
Are we incurring God’s wrath when we fail to subject ourselves to the policies of the government we live under? When we are the government, how does that subjection play out in any case?
What do you think? I am grateful for the freedom that we have been given by all of those who have fought and died to bring it to us. On this day that we take time to remember and celebrate that sacrifice, I thought I might take the time to give us some food for thought about what that freedom really means to us as a responsibility. Or to put it another way, as Scripture says, “everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”(Luke 12:48b)
My hope is that we can have some good discussion about how a representative/democratic form of government impacts these biblical injunctions about government.
Hi JEFF, I think this post is very timely . . . my concern is growing that a number of voters are now seeing serious issues arise from political leaders that they have trusted in the past. These serious issues cannot be overlooked, as they will impact the lives of people and their families directly. I think the time of the ‘one-issue’ voter may have gone by in our country. I don’t expect many to agree with that opinion, but the changes are visibly ‘out there’ and are influencing voters that some leaders could previously ‘take for granted’ to support… Read more »
I will never vote for a candidate that believes killing children is acceptable. So, as long as I am alive, the “one issue” voter will still be around.
Christiane, That comment is almost vague enough to be “politician-like.” 🙂 I think I get the gist of what you are saying and to add maybe a little different take to what Frank said in response, I think there are also people like me who have several “one-issue” stances that are make or break stuff. I certainly won’t support a candidate who approves or even condones legalized abortion for the same reason that Frank mentioned. But there are also other issues besides abortion that could turn me against a candidate as well, even a candidate who is opposed to abortion.… Read more »
Last paragraph on your response is definitely good: we have to stop being “assumed votes” for one of the big two parties. One party more than the other pays lip-service to the one or two issues that matter the most to many Christians, but seems to only rarely do anything about it. In fact, they seem to only do anything about it when they can grandstand for votes. We ought to vote based on issues and how Scripture shows God commands on those issues. But that takes a little bit of effort: you have to listen to what’s said and… Read more »
I get sick of seeing all the candidates that don’t bother to answer the voter guides. If they won’t answer the questions and I can’t find any evidence of their position on certain issues, I won’t vote for them either.
JEFF, my sentiments exactly. Abortion is my watershed issue, but you can be pro-life and I might have other issues with certain positions.
But, if one is not pro-life, my investigation of their views is over.
I two am no long a “two-party guy.” Anybody knows it takes at least three legs for a stool to stand. Until we get a viable third party (not just a spoiler), we will continue to get politics as usual.
Real Christians never vote for baby murderers–not once, ever. Now, there are people who pretend that they’re Christians, but are not, who claim “Well, yes the candidate I voted for is pro-abortion, but he’s for giving government handouts to people and guarenteeing blue-chip health care to each and every child (citizen or not) AND he’s for taxing mean old greedy Big Business AND he recognizes that Islam is a religion of peace AND he knows that homosexuality can’t possibly be a sin–Jesus never said anything about it–so of course it’s ok for gay people to marry”. Now, of course anyone… Read more »
Joe—I agree. What I think we’ve got to be careful of is trusting mainstream pro-life candidates to really be that way. Conservative Christians have been too easily assumed on by candidates that have done nothing except make one or two remarks that are pro-life. Then, they do absolutely nothing about the issue. If life is important (uh, duh) then it is time we start expecting the people we vote for to act on it, not just yak about it.
Totally agree.
Over 95% of African-American voters cast their ballot for Barack Obama in 2008.
Using your logic, what does that stat say about African-Americans? Black churches are comprised of mostly non-Christians? Just pretending?
Nope. Black Christians get a pass. In the 60’s, the ‘Pubs would never have given black people the civil rights that they deserved and they were wrong for opposing them. Therefore, black Christians voting for Dems is just a fact of life.
It’s good to see that you acknowledge Obama as a baby murderer, though. That’s progress for you, BMW. 🙂
Joe, You might want to check your history again. It was Democrat opposition that nearly derailed the Civil Rights Act. Without a larger percentage of Republicans voting for it, it would have failed to pass. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/183344.html “According to Congressional Quarterly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the House 290-130, and Republican support for the bill was much stronger than Democratic: 61 percent (152-96) of the Democrats supported the legislation while 80 percent (138-34) of the Republicans backed it. These numbers were similar in the Senate — 69 percent of Democrats (46-21), backed the bill along with 82 percent of… Read more »
I HAPPILY stand corrected. However, I still understand why many black Christians vote Dem. In my book, they get a pass.
Glad to be of help. It is amazing how badly the record has been misrepresented for so many years that so many people now believe the exact opposite of what really happened. I guess it goes back to that old saw about repeating a lie long enough perhaps.
Hi JEFF MUSGRAVE, I am not sure that any amount of revisionist-history is going to be able to pass off the Dixie-crats as comparable to the modern-day Democratic Party. I think you would agree that Obama is no Dixie-crat. And the Dixie-crats wouldn’t have supported his election, this we know, if we are at all knowledgeable about the agenda of the Dixie-crats who wielded great power in the South for a very long time. Truth is, that the Republican Party of thirty years ago also cannot be compared to the Republican Party of today. I don’t recognize today’s Republican Party… Read more »
Christiane, I am not sure what “revisionist history” you are referring to. I simply reported what was the case at the time. The modern Democrat party has moved more in the direction of what would have been the old Socialists of yesteryear (go and compare most of their stated goals of today against some old socialist papers from 30-50 years ago and you will see what I mean) and the modern Republican party has similarly shifted more toward the old Democrat party in many ways (go listen to old Kennedy speeches from the 60s and you will see what I… Read more »
It is true that Southern Democrats held up civil rights legislation for a number of years in the post-World War II era. The issue of racial equality also kickstarted the process of political realignment. Realignments happen in history. Instead of telling Christiane to go read Socialist papers or listen to JFK speeches, why not just elaborate on what you mean? American liberalism is still American liberalism. Folks may throw around words like socialism. That’s just rhetoric. Conservatism and Liberalism both attempt to provide answers to questions about the proper role of the government at all levels. FDR proposed a significant… Read more »
Instead of telling Christiane to go read Socialist papers or listen to JFK speeches, why not just elaborate on what you mean? I don’t see the need to elaborate when I made the point I was making. Based on your own comment it is apparent that the point was clear. I only mentioned the Socialist papers or JFK speeches as examples of the specific areas of drift and direction. You want real sobering reading. Read the 10 planks of Marx’s communist manifesto and see if you can figure out if there are any of them left for our country to… Read more »
Will do, Mr. Beck.
Yea, sorry, I’m going to be flip when someone tries to draw a comparison between the Communist Manifesto and the Democratic Party. That’s the domain of people like Glenn Beck. It’s silly.
I disagree with the Republican Party. But I’m not out and about drawing comparisons between the ideology of the Republican Party and that of Nazis and Klansmen. It’s beyond the pale – really ridiculous.
I prefer to ignore the extremes of both parties. Thankfully there are many many thoughtful conservatives who don’t try to draw such wild over-the-top comparisons.
Yea, sorry, I’m going to be flip when someone tries to draw a comparison between the Communist Manifesto and the Democratic Party. That’s the domain of people like Glenn Beck. It’s silly. Two things. 1) I don’t watch, listen to or even care about Glenn Beck. 2) If you got that from what I wrote you didn’t read it very well in any case. I specifically credited both of the two main parties with that kind of progress. Do I really have to post the ten planks of the manifesto for you to see how well they line up with… Read more »
I’d be happy for any examples and references. From the references, I can look up the ‘sources’ behind those references and track to the original sourcing sometimes . . . which I honestly think most people don’t do, but it is a good idea to know who is funding certains ‘think tanks’.
Especially these days, when a really well-meaning young man has authored a bill concerning Medicare, and has admitted he got his ideas from a certain think-tank.
References are helpful:
names, articles, web-sites, editorials, authors, videos, etc. etc. . . .
Jeff, Your last sentence is the kicker or point! It should matter to every Christian how they vote and I do believe it matters to God. I think part of our problem is that we stopped thinking about Biblical values and started voting for the pocket book or …! Abortion and more have been pushed aside and accepted in the voting booths by Christians. When a Christian can accept something and thus vote as if it did not matter than that person has just endorsed a anti-God position that will bring the judgement of God. Parties don’t matter – positions… Read more »
Tim,
Thanks for your input and encouragement.
My main problem is that I really don’t believe that so called pro-life politicians really care a bit about reducing / eliminating abortions. I believe all they care about is staking out a position that virtually guarantees that all pro-lifers MUST vote for them. Positions don’t matter that much. Politicians lie. They lie all the time. Their record is more important.
Ah yes, so the solution would be to vote for people who say they will support a woman’s “right” to slaughter her baby no matter what. Yeah, that makes sense.
Well, that’s not what I said, just what you assumed. You always seem to assume the worst possible interpretation of people’s comments. Not that it is any of your business, but I don’t vote for pro-choice candidates. But history and experience demonstrates that pro-life candidates accomplish essentially nothing with regards to abortion. Just enough pro-life to get people to vote for them, not quite enough to save any babies.
Hi BILL MAC, I would qualify ‘right to life’ as a stand that supports life from conception to natural death, so my outlook will be focused on consideration of positions that do not ‘cut off’ when the umbilical cord is cut. The ‘abortion issue’ for me is a portion of a larger picture because of my faith. This presents dilemmas: suppose you have a governor like ours, who in his religion and in his politics, supports ‘right to life’. So he gets elected with much support. But then he cuts the main state funding to the largest childrens’ hospital in… Read more »
The government can’t fund EVERYTHING. And the government isn’t responsible for taking care of EVERYONE’S child–that’s what parents are for. Furthermore, what kind of deficit is your state running. Pretty huge I would guess. Therefore, there is even less money to fund state services. Hard choices have to be made. You think you can do better? Run for office. Furthermore, there is no inconsistency in voting anti-baby slaugher and then also voting to cut back or cut out entitlement programs giving money to people who are capable of working but are too lazy to do so. You want a better… Read more »
JOE, my ‘example’ concerned babies born too soon to breathe on thier own . . . not ‘capable adults’ trying to sponge off of the tax-payers. I am sure you are right about encouraging independent effort in our society, but there are times when we come together to provide something more than we could do individually. My point was that a governor who openly advocated support for life used his power to bring harm to a much needed children’s hospital . . . you, I know, wouldn’t ‘pull the plug’ in a NICU on a defenseless infant, nor would I… Read more »
Christiane, The problem with the particular example you give is many fold. It is pure rhetoric to assume that the hospital could not find the funds to pay for the NICU from any other source than government. In fact, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that the hospital chose to prioritize other areas to receive the funding that they did have to spend already because they were reasonably sure they could more readily get public dollars for NICU than they could if those dollars were identified for janitorial staff or another office assistant to file paperwork. In other… Read more »
Hi JEFF,
Yes. I can see your point.
But you have to understand that, in the eyes of our voters, it all came as a ‘one’, ‘two’ punch:
the cutting of state funding,
followed by the insurance companies backing out on paying for care in that hospital almost immediately.
I guess people expected state retirement funds to be depleted of state tax benefits (and they were), and school funding to be severely cut (and it was);
but honestly, Jeff, people didn’t expect entities like the hospital to be targeted.
It has caused much controversy among voters here.
Oh, SNAP!!!
Just a Friend
Biz Markie
The Biz Never Sleeps, Warner Brothers Records
the cutting of state funding,
followed by the insurance companies backing out on paying for care in that hospital almost immediately.
Insurance companies have the right to make that call. There are hospitals that my insurance company will not pay if I or my family go to them. So I do this wild, wacky thing–it’s just crazy–I go to places where they DO pay. The government doesn’t get to come in and tell a private company what to do–unless it’s Government Motors (GM).
Hi JOE,
That governor? He campaigned one way.
Once in power, he acted ‘another’ way.
Actually, the republican (small “r”) form of government puts law in charge. Lex rex. Consequently, living Romans 13 in a republic (democratic or otherwise) means obeying the law. In the case of our country’s founding, they did not behave “opposite” of Romans 13 because they believed the authority to reside in law and that a subset of that law was reflected in natural law (endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights, etc.). Consequently, the thinking was that George III had breached contract, etc., and stepped outside the law. The idea that leaders submit to the will of the people is… Read more »
Aaron, Well said. I agree with you and you point out an overstatement in my own post. But I assert that it would still be true to say that the Founders rebelled against the duly appointed government, they were even referred to as “rebels.” Your points are all very good in theory, but the republic that we started with is no longer in evidence and it is readily apparent that we are no longer a nation governed by laws. I can cite examples aplenty but let me just point out two recent ones in which president’s have ignored the constitution… Read more »
Jeff– I would think that since the current laws provide opportunities to get back to that form we should use those methods to try and move back towards that system. If the corruption reaches the point that there are no legal methods to get back, then we would find ourselves where, perhaps, the Founders were. That’s a whole, long discussion that’s probably not suited for here. Suffice to say that while it’s legal to obtain what would be necessary to recover freedom in the years to come, we ought to do so. Knowledge, skills, community, and supplies should be a… Read more »
Fortunately, the situation is not binary. That is, even though there are failures of law, we are still a nation of law. How much disregard of law and order must occur before we are “no longer a nation of laws”? Impossible to quantify, but we are not there by a long shot. In most places in America, if you see a police officer you do not need to look for a place to hide. He’s not going to pull you over at random and demand a bribe to not put you in jail… unlike much of, say, South America. So… Read more »
I think an idea that truly can reconcile ‘We The People’ together with the ‘rule of Law’ together with the ‘Common Good’ is this: ‘LET RIGHT BE DONE ‘ Without that motivation, we exist at the whim of the powerful and have no recourse to what is right and just. One of the foundational documents of the development of Law was the ‘Magna Carta’, which stated these words: “. . . to no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice.” The ‘Magna Carta’ was a foundational base for English Common Law, which the… Read more »
“Right” and “wrong” are defined by the Bible. Therefore, abortion is not “right” and there is nothing “wrong” with cutting back or cutting out wasteful government entitlement programs that take money from hardworking people and give that money to people who are capable of working but are too lazy.
Yes, let “right” be done.
Yep, this country began with rebellion against a duly constituted government. One has to really stop and think about that issue. There must have been some kind of better understanding of biblical teachings back inthe 1700s that enabled the people then to seemingly fly in the face of scripture, and yet that is just what they did. The answer is, of course, that they did have a little better method of scriptural interpretation, comparing scripture with scripture. It is what I would call the synthetical method, the laying of two sets of scripture about an issue together and then working… Read more »
I just received a 16 item questionairre from the Republican National Committee and NOT ONE QUESTIONJ was about abortion. Why ? And don’t be afraid of the answers.
What are your thoughts about this, JACK ?
It is not a secret that the powers that be in the RNC aren’t terribly concerned with the abortion issue. A lot of the Republican establishment has been talking for years about how to minimize or downplay the so called “social issues” in favor of financial ones.
Why?
Because most people are certain the Repubs are against abortion and Dems are for abortion, so they are looking to frame the rest of the debate. Plus, by downplaying it now, they leave themselves wiggle room to try and move a few independents that aren’t as anti-abortion to vote for (fill in the blank) in November 2012.
Remember: poly means many. Ticks are blood-sucking disease-carrying parasites. So, what might the compound word “politics” mean?
(please, I know the real origin of the word in Greek democracy so don’t give that lecture.)
Because the repubs have already succeeded in training evangelicals to jump through hoops and snap sugar off their noses on command. We are a guaranteed vote, so they don’t have to pander to us anymore.
The GOP has never been about ending abortion. A lot of people conveniently forget that prior to 1980, the GOP was the party of the socially liberal country club Wall Street types, pro-abortion etc. Most of the foundations and think tanks that have the real clout in the GOP, like the Cato Institute and the Club for Growth, are socially liberal. Around 1980, the GOP began to feign affection for the pro-life cause in order to attract the support of the “Reagan Democrats” in the south and midwest. (And let us not forget, a lot of southern and midwestern Democrats… Read more »
SCOTUS is one of the most overlooked embarrassments of the Republican party of late. In recent memory (before Obama’s appointments) there was a 7-2 edge of Republican appointees on the bench there and you still had to hold your breath every time a ruling came down hoping it would actually uphold the Constitution (many times it didn’t). That total bomb that came out of the Indiana court that overturned precedent going back to the Magna Carta was done by a majority of judges appointed by the current Republican governor there if I read correctly. I can’t imagine why anyone would… Read more »
As for “rebels,” I’m not a fan of revolution and I’m not entirely convinced that the colonies did the right thing. However, it was not even close to a simple of matter of “We’re sick of you bossing us around.” As I pointed out, the rationale was that England had violated law. So in their eyes, though they were rebels against George III, they were not rebels against law or God. I find this argument more than plausible if less than completely persuasive. Aaron, This is a great paragraph. I guess this is more what I was hoping to get… Read more »
The deacons of our church have a policy that may be helpful for understanding the issue here. Our deacons go into meeting and do not always agree. So they deliberate. The deliberation may be intense. But it is understood that as long as the goal is to honor and glorify God, then this is the process God uses to establish His will among us. When the final decision has been made, no matter how they felt about the issue otherwise, they come out of the deliberation unified behind the decision because they have submitted to the authority that God has… Read more »
Even government respects the ‘conscientious objector’.
I have yet to have the privilege of reading a Southern Baptist blog that explores the role of ‘conscience’ as . . .
and I would appreciate any reference to existing writings by Southern Baptists to do with the importance of ‘conscience’ when it comes to ‘obedience of any external authority’.
Jim, I think given your peramters in the last paragraph, I can agree fully with your approach.
Of course, the government is not the church and so there might need to be that caveat given in regard to how much one supports any government decision.
But, as a general approach to being Christian (church government) and being American (secular government), I think you have offered a godly perspective.
The voting patterns of various groups and the way political parties can change over time can be really interesting to study. No party is perfectly pure on issues. There are exceptions to the party platform or ideals of a party. I get a chuckle on the attempt of some to argue about the moral superiority of one party over against another. It really is amusing. That does not mean that we cannot and should not have opinions and strong feelings about policy and issues, and the belief that one party over the other will pursue the issues we feel strongly… Read more »
LOUIS, I’m not sure we can judge the history of the ‘black vote’ completely fairly, as there were ‘restrictions’ put on who could sign up to vote . . . even as now, as you know, there are ‘new’ restrictions being put into law in certain states that will prevent certain groups of American citizens from voting in upcoming elections. Will the new voting restrictions yield an honest picture of what those groups of American citizens supported? No, they won’t. So, in future, I may be writing about this ‘pattern’ of voter suppression again, as it affects ‘how certain groups… Read more »
that will prevent certain groups of American citizens from voting
Oh, you mean the laws that are going to require folks to be able to prove their identity?? The only people who have a problem with those laws are people with something to hide–people who don’t want folks to know who they are or where they’re from. You know, like the illegal immigrants that your side believes has a “right” to vote and a “right” to services from the government.
Christiane: You wrote – “I have yet to have the privilege of reading a Southern Baptist blog that explores the role of ‘conscience’ as . . . and I would appreciate any reference to existing writings by Southern Baptists to do with the importance of ‘conscience’ when it comes to ‘obedience of any external authority’. Not to worry. Hope springs eternal! Your penchant for ideological advocacy and evangelism on Southern Baptist blogs, half-heartedly masked in a variety of other motives, will no doubt propel you to find such a blog. Or better yet – found one. I would love to… Read more »
Your penchant for ideological advocacy and evangelism on Southern Baptist blogs, half-heartedly masked in a variety of other motives
Ok, you, Mr. Louis, owe me a new laptop to replace the one I just ruined with the Diet Dr. Pepper that just spewed out of my nose after I read that. Bwhahaha
Hi LOUIS, I think you have asked me before if I blog on any ‘Catholic’ blogs. The answer is ‘no’. I am interested in observing first-hand the opinions of Southern Baptist people on a variety of issues. Sometimes I ask questions. And I get lectured for doing that sometimes, because it is considered by some to be, I think the wording was ‘ingenious’, but I do want to find out more about the history of what happened to my Grandmother’s denomination over time . . . as far as ‘ideology’, I am very conservative on some issues, moderate on others,… Read more »
And I get lectured for doing that sometimes, because it is considered by some to be, I think the wording was ‘ingenious’, but I do want to find out more about the history of what happened to my Grandmother’s denomination over time . . . I think the phrase you’re grasping for is “disingenious”. That’s because you pretend to be asking a question when they are usually just back-handed insults. You’re not really interested in the answer, your questions are intended to put Christians in a poor light, malign the gospel, or mock the word of God. And if you… Read more »
I’d be happy for any examples and references. I will try and give you a few if you want. The communist manifesto’s 10 planks are available pretty much anywhere. You can even find them in correct form on Wikipedia. I kind of hate filling up comments with a ton of links, but I will give you a few. Here is what FDR had to say about Public Service Unions when he was president. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xycy1aNZBzc Compare that to the way the current Democrat party behaved in Wisconsin and elsewhere. FDR would have been on the Republican side of the debate based… Read more »