Overheard the other day at work: “Well, he did steal the election in 2000. It’s no wonder he’s such a loser president now.”
The conversation was between two PhD types, not lightweight thinkers. For some reason I expected more intelligence out of them. But what would you expect from university types?
But cruise through the Christian blogs and you’ll find the same sort of anti-Bush rhetoric with reasonable frequency. Somehow that surprises me more. Maybe it shouldn’t. It just seems like the Bible sees things differently.
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. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For 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, for 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. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Rom. 13:1-5).
I’m wondering how a believer is “subject to the governing authorities” while ridiculing, insulting, and decrying them. It doesn’t work in my head.
I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1-4).
Yes, I know, it is possible to insult someone while lifting them up in prayer, supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving, but somehow it seems counterproductive. Aren’t the two concepts actually in opposition?
We live in a republic. We get to vote people into office. We need to recognize bad government and vote on it. I have to wonder, though, how far we can go with that. Do Christians have the right or even obligation to speak with disrespect and unkindness about the authorities that God has placed over us? Do American principles of the democratic process override biblical principles of respect and love? Or am I missing something here? It just bothers me.
4 comments:
I don't think that it is too far to dislike the policies and actions of a leader, and to voice those opinions. As long as you obey and serve. And at the same time you can pray and intercede on their behalf, and still not be contradicting the two points. If people do not complain about leadership policy and action, then leaders like Hitler and Mousilini (not sure on spelling) come into power, and though they were appointed by God, they are not leaders I would revel in following. As long as you respect the position and authority of the leader, and pray for Godly guidance, and godly conduct, one is within the bounds of democracy and the Bible.
David,
Absolutely true. It isn't going too far to dislike policies and actions. It isn't even going too far to comment on those policies and actions. In the case of leaders like Hitler and Mussolini, some of the commands issued must even be disobeyed, as they violate God's explicit instructions.
The problem is not in recognizing faulty policies or actions, but in the personal assaults that are offered. I've seen Christian sites calling him a criminal and a fool. That's not questioning policies or actions, but assaulting the man.
Now, I don't know who could be a more clearer representative than Satan than Satan himself, but when confronting him, Michael the Archangel "did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you.'" (Jude 1:9). Yet many Christians have no problem pronouncing railing judgments against the President (not just his policies or actions).
My problem is not that Christians disagree with Bush's policies or actions, but that they do it without respect for the man or the office. (Note: I had equal problems with Christians reviling President Clinton.)
As one of those Christians that openly reviled President Clinton, I have to agree with this. I have found myself hypocritical during the Bush presidency, wishing that those with "Bush Derangement Syndrome" would at least be respectful to the office of the Presidency and fair-minded and honest with their accusations (which, quite frankly, are more often than not myths, exxagerations and innuendo). Looking back, though, I acted much the same way with Clinton as President - and if my conservatism was the main reason for bashing him, it's truly ironic that looking back in comparison, he was (and still is) much more moderate than the controlling interests of the Democratic Party these days.
Eight years of others "bashing Bush" has humbled me greatly. The next Democratic President will get much more public support and prayer from me than I was willing to give Bill Clinton. Of course, the difference is, the more conservatives bashed Clinton the higher his "rock star" status was in the minds of the liberal elite both at home and abroad(including those professors you speak of, Stan). History, at least short-term history, is written by these people (not to mention the media) - and they will be, and have been, much kinder to Clinton than to Bush. That's not my "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" resurfacing, it's just a sad fact.
Scott,
Something I tried to teach my kids that we "children of God" may need to learn is the ability to disagree without disrespect. You can't imagine how impressive it was the first time my teenage son said, "Dad, I will do what you tell me to, but I don't understand why, and I'd like to." What a shift from the whining, "Why?!!" one might normally hear from a teenage kid.
In Scripture, we see David arguing with God. He seems actually quite upset about God's actions and choices in places (Psalms). Disagreement is not the problem; respect in disagreement is. I suspect that until we learn respectful disagreement, we shouldn't expect it in return.
Post a Comment