Well, perhaps I'm an odd one, but this question would never occur to me. And here I am about to step into uncharted territory and mark myself as a lunatic ... again. You see, assuming that I held the same views as I currently do, if I had been around during the American Revolution, I would have been opposed to it. Okay, I know that places me on the fringe, but, hey, I'm used to being there. Still, let me explain why so, while you may not agree with me, at least you'll understand my thinking.
I believe that my worldview ought to conform to God's worldview, and I believe that the only way I can approach that is to conform my worldview to Scripture. Thus, it is always my goal to 1) properly understand Scripture and 2) allow that understanding to shape my views (rather than vice versa). I try, then, to operate on biblical principles rather than personal preferences. So, what biblical principles do I find that relate to this question?
I keep telling Christians this, but they don't seem to believe me, but from what I see the Bible is quite sparce on information about human governments. We read in the Old Testament that human government gets to take the life of a person that kills a person. Fine. That's helpful. And we see this:
1 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. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 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, 4 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. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Rom. 13:1-7)Now, this passage is pretty clear and, if you take it as it is written, somewhat disturbing. This is why I needed to address all that stuff about Sovereignty and suffering before. You see, according to what Paul wrote here the governments that exist "have been instituted by God" (v 1). Get that? This is saying that Barack Obama has been put in place not by foolish Democrats or wayward Americans, but by God. Our Congress, no matter what you may think of it, has been put in place by God. And if you oppose these, you oppose God. (Again, remember all that stuff about Sovereignty and suffering and "My ways are not your ways" and such.)
I believe, then, that armed rebellion, especially on the part of those who call themselves Christians and wish to allow their reality to be shaped by God rather than the world, has no place in our thinking. Now, I know that I'm not in the majority here. I know that the founders of our nation disagreed with me. Still, I cannot begin to imagine how I would fit "Overthrow the government" with "he is God's servant for your good" (v 4). I don't see how I put together "armed rebellion" with "one must be in subjection" (v 5). It just doesn't fit in my head. And suggesting, as some of our founding fathers did, that the government isn't what it is supposed to be doesn't seem to excuse it for me.
I do find room for civil disobedience. There is a distinction here. Civil disobedience, by definition, is non-violent. It is simply the refusal to obey a law because the law is immoral. If I were a pastor, for instance, and the state mandated that I perform same-sex marriages, I would be forced to refuse. When the government commands me to violate what God commands me, I have an obligation to refuse. Likewise, if the government forbids what God commands, I am forced to break that law as well. But here is the main distinction. In civil disobedience, I am being accountable to God (as opposed to the government, society, etc.), and in civil disobedience if I break the law either by omission or commission, I accept whatever punishment is meted out. That is, I still agree that the government has the God-given right to enforce their laws with the "sword" if necessary. It's just that I have to be responsible to God for my conscience.
I can see the possibility in the not-so-distant future of Christians having to engage in civil disobedience. There are those who would like to restrict our right to practice the faith as we must. (There is, for instance, a city near me that actually has a ban on holding Bible studies or meetings for prayer in your own home, believe it or not.) There are those who would like to require Christian organizations to recognize as moral things that God has deemed immoral. It doesn't seem too far away. And if it comes to it, I will have to stand my ground and take whatever punishment I must. But I cannot for the life of me find any way I can observe Romans 13 and still advocate the violent overthrow of the government of my country. And note that the passage won't even allow me to balk at paying my taxes based on this health care bill because he plainly writes, "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed ..." (v 7). How do I get around that? So ... you might think I'm on the lunatic fringe, but here I stand ...
Update:
4/5/2010 - It was interesting to read Dr. Albert Mohler's blog on the topic. He agrees with me that we need to obey the government and pay our taxes even if it means paying for the health care bill. I may be wrong ... but I'm not wrong alone.
20 comments:
Stan,
Great post and thanks for sharing your beliefs on this topic. I have been dealing with the issue for weeks as the health care bill debate has come up and trying to answer the same questions about what is the Biblical position, or "Christian" position on this topic.
I do believe the issue is difficult because there is so much intertwined with government on the one hand and the Biblical-Christian worldview on the other. For example, paying taxes. If we were to assume that the new health care bill would take tax dollars to directly fund abortions that would seem to advocate the civilly disobedient act of ceasing to pay taxes so as to not support killing the unborn.
The more indirect link is with taxation policy, however. I'm just thinking out loud, but if you were to set up a government with the Biblical-Christian worldview and knew taxes were necessary to fund items of common good (infrastructure, national defense, etc.) you could promote a tax that was based on goods purchased, pure and complete sales tax. This way, if taxes were levied for an action outside the religious belief one would be provided an avenue of civil disobedience by not purchasing goods. Start a garden, live off the land, still work and provide for your family without supporting an unjust cause or going to jail. Income tax seems on its face to take from people first when they work (which men must do, Biblically) to support their families and the only recourse is penalty by law. It seems like in the case of taxation, the amendment to allow taxing incomes created a point of conflict here.
Now, again i'm just musing, and i'm not saying that somehow these governmental policies are out of God's hands or beyond His knowledge, just that as believers living in a country where we have a voice we should be far-sighted enough to see problems and be strong in our discourse and as influential as we can be. Ultimately we know that persecution is part of Christendom, there is too much Biblical evidence to deny that fact, and those believers in the US are in a unique place because many in the world suffer every day. We can speak out to spread both the love of Christ to the dying (physically and spritually) and also speak out on what the Christian principles are on the issues of the day.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on government. One more thing, ultimately each man must give an account for his actions on the day of judgement so we should have no fear of one who can only kill the body but cannot harm the soul, but live in an awesome reverence for the One to whom we give an eternal account.
Thanks for another great discussion topic, Stan.
Blessings.
Oh, if I were king, taxation would change. It would be based on purchases rather than income. I much prefer a tax structure based on what we spend (which is our choice) versus what we earn (which is rarely our choice). Essentially you would be deciding how much to support the government by how much you buy (or don't).
And I don't know what I'll do if my tax dollars are used to kill babies (fund abortion). That one is a bit sticky, isn't it? Withhold a part? (You know, some of the taxes we do owe.)
I wonder what the feasibility is of finding a spot away from it all in today's world and providing your own subsistence without income. Seems doubtful to me, but worth thinking about ...
Stan,
Isn't it fascinating that it seems apparent that the founders almost anticipated these questions and at least attempted to provide an avenue for disagreement. It seems they tried to infuse the same liberty they knew in Christ into the fabric of the society, all the numerous references to each man acting "by the dictates of his own conscience" and considering the limited and restricted role government should play since although necessary among a society of sinners they would most definately be sinners themselves.
What to do and how to approach politics and government is becoming increasingly "sticky". I will give some serious thought to your suggestion of what the "feasibility is of finding a spot away from it all in today's world and providing your own subsistence without income." It is definately worth some thought.
Let me know if you come up with a doable alternative.
So wait, but if God didn't approve of what the founding fathers did when they overthrew England, yet God is the One who puts authorites in place, it seems to me we were doing his work when we founded this country since He appointed the overthrowers in the first place and they became the governing authorities.
Really, the way that works when we say that God appoints leaders of the nations that no matter who leads and what country got overthrown, God had a hand in it. Especially since He is sovereign and His will is always done... It must have been His will to do what the founding fathers did and if we overthrow the government in the future and appoint new leaders, well, those leaders will have also been appointed by God...
As far as taxes being "owed"... I find it interesting that all the government has to do is say, "Here's how much you owe me" and that means we owe it? That makes it theirs?
So I can say to someone, "Hey, you owe me $10.00" and that means that he now has something that belongs to me?
I think in order for that to happen there has to be agreement from both parties. If I don't agree to pay for something, then it's still rightfully my money. I don't owe someone money unless we enter into some sort of contract to exchenge said money for a service or something.
just saying, "You owe me money" doesn't make it so.
And that is pretty much how it happens in this country. so it's actually the government who is taking what is rightfully ours when we are forced to pay taxes, not us taking what is rightfully the overnment's when we don't.
Mike,
Years ago I was talking to my son about the will of God. I told him, "I can tell you exactly what the will of God was for you yesterday -- whatever happened. Now, tomorrow? That's not so easy." I can look back and say, "God put our government in place" ... because it is in place. What you're talking about is looking forward. With this kind of logic, I could overthrow any government I pleased and, if I was successful, tell myself "It was God's will for me to do it, so it was good." Like I said, if I had been there back then, I couldn't have participated. Today, I can look back and say it was God's will. When Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, the evil act ended up saving Israel. He put it this way: "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good." That is, while God used their evil for His ultimately good end, it was still evil. Judas Iscariot doesn't get to stand before God and say, "My betrayal of Your Son was a good thing because you wouldn't have accomplished it without me and I was doing what was predestined" (Luke 22:22). If something occurs, it is God's will, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a morally good thing. Six million Jews died in Hitler's Germany and that was God's will for God's purposes, but I don't think of it as a moral thing.
As a sidenote, I read a piece some years ago that said that England was on the verge of cutting the Colonies loose. We were too far away and too much trouble. Our act of rebellion forced them to fight, but who knows what would have happened if we didn't?
On taxes, I'm confused. The passage I quoted referenced taxes and only taxes, not all other debt. Note that when Jesus said, "Render to Caesar what is Ceasar's", He wasn't operating under a "fair and just" tax system. No one in Israel agreed to those taxes. It wasn't a fair system. Paul was under the same system when he wrote what I quoted. But, try this. Tell the government, "I don't agree that I owe you the taxes you say I owe, so I don't have to pay them" and see how far that gets you. No, when you tell another human being, "You owe me $x", that isn't necessarily binding, but the government is another issue. (Your "I think in order for that to happen there has to be agreement from both parties" shows primarily modern, American thinking.)
Overall, then, I'm confused as to your position. It seems as if you would say to Paul, "If we don't want to obey our government, we can do a hostile takeover and, if we succeed, it was God's will. And if we don't agree that we owe taxes, your words aren't of any value here because we didn't agree with the government. So, basically, this whole passage isn't really in force." Now, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't actually take that position, but it seems like the logical conclusion from what you wrote.
Stan and Mike, if I may interject:
I've been thinking a lot (due to a recent devotional) about Jesus and the temple and the angle of being angry but not sinning. Jesus overturned the tables and ran the moneychangers out of the temple. This was not a passive demonstration, nor an act of civil disobedience but a direct and willful act of defending the sanctity of that which God declared Holy. It was one recorded occasion where Jesus physically intervened in sinful activity. He didn't kill anyone and didn't sin, yet he took action.
The founders wrote the Declaration of Independence as a justification for their action, and to separate their rebellion from England from the French who just revolted in true revolutionary fashion. There were reasons for the revolt in the minds of the American founders, namely the fundamental rights due those created in the image of God (life, liberty and property) had been usurped and the time had come to put and end to the tyranny.
Was this right or wrong? Was this the will of God? Would it be right to make the same kind of Declaration today and who would participate? Difficult questions all and some already well addressed in the previous posts, but my feeling is that each man will be judged according to the thoughts and attitudes of his heart. There is liberty in Christ, we can be brothers in the Lord and take opposite stands and both be equally accountable for acting in accordance with God's will for our lives. That's what I love about the Christian faith, it is a personal I-you relationship. I am accountable to God for what He leads me to do with a clear conscience and with a contrite heart. In His Sovereign will and for His glory will I act, based on the leading of the Holy Spirit as it aligns with the Word of God.
I believe that way it is possible for God to be Sovereign in us being under the authority of a government, and at a certain time in history rising up against that same governmental authority. If the Holy Spirit can fall on a multitude and bring a mass of people into the fold all speaking different tounges and understanding one another, then I feel sure that same Holy Spirit could lead a band of colonials against all odds to defy the contemporary rulers to bring about a rebellion for the establishment of a new nation and likewise a group into protest or action against similar usurpations today.
I guess my point is we don't know the mind of God, so maybe the answer is act in accordance with the knowledge that I am personally accountable to God Almighty for my thoughts, attitudes and actions and tread humbly but boldly in the name of the Lord and in accordance with the Word; at least that's my thinking and my understanding of the founders' motivation.
Mike,
Based on Jeremy's response here, it is entirely possible that you might think that I took issue with what you wrote. I did not. I'm the kind of person that likes to discuss ideas. I said (essentially) "It looks like this is what you might be saying" and hope that you would clear it up if I was (and likely am) wrong. However, as I said in the post, especially on this point I realize I'm pretty much all alone out there. Oh, maybe a few of us outliers, perhaps, but I would not be "mainstream" in this position by any stretch of the imagination ... and you would. But it's an interesting issue as opposed to an essential issue, so it's merely interesting, not intended to be divisive.
Jeremy, from my perspective (again stressing it is my perspective, not intending to disparage anybody at all), if it is wrong from God's perspective to defy the government the way Paul describes, I cannot begin to fathom the possibility that the Holy Spirit would lead a group of genuine believers into sin. Now, God Himself admits to ordaining sin in various senses ("an evil spirit from the Lord" for Saul, "deceiving spirits from the Lord" for Ahab, and so on), so it is entirely possible that God would ordain sinful people to perform a sinful act to accomplish His ends, but I would never lay that at the feet of the Holy Spirit. "Overthrowing a government" and Pentecost were not similar events in any sense.
Stan,
I didn't take your comments to Mike as you taking issue with his comments. Nor do I take your response to mine as an offense. I see we three as brothers in Christ trying to hash out a very difficult topic for a practical problem we face today. As I said, I am thinking out loud and welcome other ideas as I continue to study and seek the Lord for wisdom and direction.
I feel like the time is fast approaching when decisions on these matters will be at hand, and it is better to discuss them now openly and have a good idea on what is right in our own minds before faced with a snap decision.
Blessings to you and Mike as we work through these issues and serve the Lord in our limited capacities.
I didn't think you'd take what I said as an offense. It just occurred to me as I read what you were saying that I could have been taken the wrong way with what I said to Mike and wanted to clear it up before it happened.
"I feel like the time is fast approaching when decisions on these matters will be at hand, and it is better to discuss them now openly and have a good idea on what is right in our own minds before faced with a snap decision."
Too fast. True.
Stan,
Partly I'm just being the devil's advocate here because that helps me to better understand things and often brings new ideas to light.
I don't refuse to pay my taxes and I do understand what you're saying about God's will. (And I don't think you took issue with what I wrote. I too love a god conversation!)
However, I also thingk often times, things are taken out of context. "Render to Cesar what is Cesar's" is valid. IF in fact, it actually is Cesar's. In my opinion, Cesar does not get to just claim it and it becomes his.
I probably take a bit of a different stance on what "submitting to the governing authorities" means. I do not believe that means that we obey every law other men have laid out for us. What I do believe is that we have a choice to follow man's laws or not to as long as we're willing to suffer whatever consequence might befall us if we are caught and are of course looking out for others as wel. I'm pretty sure God doesn't care if I wear my seatbelt or not or if I decide to roll through a stop sign at 4 in the morning when no one is around... But if I get pulled over, I believe I am to be respectful and willing to pay whatever fine is imposed for violating such laws.
Jesus broke laws that men made and yet remained free from sin. He also submitted to the governing authorities... We can do both.
Many laws are in place for our own safety, to protect us from ourselves. I tend to choose what is safe for myself and really couldn't care less about what some idiot beraucrat in Washington thinks is best for me.
Great conversation guys!!
Mike,
The concept of "government of the people" is actually fairly new and, in historical terms, very rare. Oh, sure, the ancient Greeks had a democracy (a genuine democracy, not a republic like ours), but the idea of some sort of "social contract", a government that rules by the will of the people ... that idea is just not all that common historically. Our founding fathers considered it a certainty, but ... why? On what did they base this philosophy? It isn't a Christian philosophy. You won't find it as some sort of human standard. So it was their philosophy of government and we have been the benefactors, but it wasn't standard and, frankly, still isn't.
I wonder sometimes (quietly to myself most of the time), in fact, if a government like ours is the best option. I wouldn't want fascism or tyranny or socialism or communism, sure, but sometimes I think that a benevolent dictatorship might be better.
If you had suggested to the citizens of England in the 10th century that the government doesn't have the right to tax you as they please and that there must be some mutual agreement, they would have looked at you like you were insane. It was American rebels who declared "No sovereign" because prior to that most people believed that there were human sovereigns and they had the right to do pretty much what they pleased. Unfortunately, I do find support for that idea in Scripture and I don't find any denial of it there. So if I (and I understand this is my stance, not necessarily anyone else) want my views to be shaped by Scripture, I'm not sure I can stand where you suggest.
By the way, there are places in Scripture where godly people defy the government. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Peter refused to stop preaching the Gospel. It's true. However, the only place that Jesus or the rest rightly defied the government was when they commanded things in violation of God's commands. I would have to, for instance, defy the government if they forced abortion (like in China) because I have explicit commands from God against murder. Taxation and buying health insurance don't fall under direct commands from God.
Stan,
Regarding healing on the sabbath, I don't think that if Jesus hadn't healed on the Sabbath he would have been violating a command from God. His choice to heal on the Sabbath was not because 'not healing' would have been going against God's commands. We are not commanded to heal.
I believe one reason Jesu did that was to make an example (and a mockery) of some of the rules that men were making and to teach us that not all rules made by our government are helpful and in fact, some are harmful.
Also, I don't think there is anything in the bible that tells us to break man's rules if they conflict with God's. I'm pretty sure that is an assumption on our part. I think obviously God's aws trump man's, but I'm not sure it's actually written.
I've known other Christians who actually believe in man's laws so firmly that they think we should not be sendig bibles to countries that don't allow it.
I suppose according to them, I was sinning when I helped a church group smuggle shoes into Mexico on a home-builing mission trip. I believe I did the right thing by helping the poor in that country. (And it's not a direct commandment to give shoes to the poor - If I had not smuggled shoes in, I would not have been violating any of God's laws either - so it was strictly my choice to disobey the government in that case) although what I did was in fact, in direct violation of man's laws.
Stan,
Not a lot of time this afternoon, but I did want to make a few comments. First, my idea of "revolt" or "rebellion" is basically a step of a group saying a governing body has overstepped its bounds and declare themselves independent (as I eluded to earlier as the technique used by the founders, in contradistinction to the French who engaged in more of an anarchy) and then face the possibility of having to defend themselves when the governing body says "you can't do that and we're going to stop you by force if necessary".
Also, you said "a government that rules by the will of the people ... that idea is just not all that common historically. Our founding fathers considered it a certainty, but ... why? On what did they base this philosophy?" Based on my studies the founders set about creating a representative republic, where people voted for a representative that voted on what was right not based on what the majority of the constituents wanted. People would vote for the man based on what he believed, and this most often reflected what they believed so the decisions wouldn't be that different. Until those representives appointed Senators, so they were not acting based on the majority opinion of the constituants either. The checks and balances between branches of government and short terms in office was the measure by which to make sure the public officials reflected the thinking of the people. We pledge allegiance to the republic for which we stand.
I will submit that this is not the system we live in today. Much in American thinking has changed and the original system established by the founders has changed drastically by amendment since the nations inception.
I will provide some reference for this and for civil disobedience by a Christian thinker on such matters a bit later.
Again, thanks for the discussion. It's great to be sharpened by such knowledgable Christian brothers.
Blessings.
Mike,
No, Jesus wasn't healing on the Sabbath in submission to one of God's Commandments, but He was healing on the Sabbath because He was commanded to (John 5:19). (Everything He did He did under the Father's directions.) I believe that Christians can still operate under the Father's directions (Bibles to people whose government forbid it, etc.). (Seriously? You had to smuggle shoes into Mexico? I wasn't aware there was a shoe ban in Mexico. Over my lifetime I've taken lots of stuff into Mexico to help people there. Didn't have a clue that it was against the law.)
The "rule" that allows us to defy government instructions isn't in there ... you're right. Well, not in so many words. I base it on the multiple examples I find of people who rightly violated government rules. Now, if no such principle is implied in Scripture, then the only thing we have is the explicit command to never violate government rules. Of course, now we're back to the problem, aren't we? Jesus sinned. Peter was wrong for continuing to preach the Gospel. That sort of thing. Christians in Hitlers army could have been forced to kill Jews. Not making any sense to me. On the other hand, if it is purely arbitrary -- "I will violate whatever laws I think are good to violate" -- then we're back to "What in the world was Paul talking about in the first place?" So to me it makes sense to say that when God's specific commands trump Man's laws, I have the obligation to obey God ... you know, kind of like what Peter said: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge" (Acts 4:19). (That, by the way, is my clearest source for my position.)
Jeremy,
That is indeed what our founding fathers did -- declared their independence because they believed the government had overstepped its bounds. My problem (and, again, I need to say that it is my problem) is who gets to determine "its bounds"? Our founding fathers based it on the perception of God-given rights ... that I don't find anywhere in Scripture.
That they founded the country on voters voting in a representative government is clear. That the voters would vote in people with their own values is likely. That it is was a standard perspective (like it is today) is not. I learned this quite jarringly a few years back. We had a guy from China living with us for a few months. He worked at the same place I did. My friend and I were asking him about life in China. My friend asked, "So, are you a communist?" He was surprised. "No, most Chinese aren't communist." Now my friend was surprised. "I thought your government was communist." "It is ... but we didn't put it there."
I learned that day that not all governments are of the people, by the people, and for the people. I learned that day that not all governments represent the people. And I learned that day the opposite fact. In a government like ours the government represents the people. Thus, if you want to get a snapshot of what the people are like, look at the government. We put them there. Now that is a bit frightening.
Stan
Good points, all of them.
Paul tells us to "submit to the governing authorities", not to do whatever they tell us. I think there is a difference. I mentioned it a few posts back in this thread.
If I choose to not wear my seatbelt and I get pulled over, I respectfully accept whatever the penalty is. That is still submission... I haven't done the work to find out what the actual Greek is for that verse, so I could be wrong, but one of the other things that guides me is my conscience in matters like man's laws. I don't see any moral implications coming from any laws that I choose to respectfully disregard, and I certainly don't feel convicted when I don't wear my seatbelt (except maybe I get a little annoyed for the first 30 seconds from that incessant beeping sound, but it goes away when I turn the radio up!)
Same with speeding really. These laws were put in place for safety's sake. The seatbelt is only protecting me from myself so there's no one else involved there (I pay my own medical bills). Speed limits are there to keep others around me safe. But let's say I'm in Montana (where I frequent often) and I'm on one of those highways that go on forever... I set my cruise control on 85 - 90, don't see any other cars for sometimes 10 minutes or more... It's quite safe really. So the purpose of the law in the first place is being served.
Everyone's safe and I get to my destination faster... It's a win/win! :-)
Like I've said before, you're certainly free to simply follow your conscience and defy whatever laws you wish on whatever basis you choose. It's my problem, not yours, that I'm stuck with an understanding of "submit" to mean "To yield to the authority of". When I read that I am supposed to "rank under" (the most literal reading of the Greek) the government, it is hard for me (I mean for me, obviously not for you) to simply violate the laws I feel like violating. It's likely just me that has a problem with "If I'm doing 90 in a 65 zone and pass someone who knows I'm a Christian, what will that say to them about how Christians operate in society?"
So you are certainly free to not use the seat belt or exceed the speed limit or whatever you think is not that important to follow. Since I can't seem to get my head around "submit" in that context, I'll have to stick with my more narrow view ... if that's okay with you. ;)
Post a Comment