Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[T.Lex]

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

Ooof. I wonder what Martin Luther would've said about that as he was hammering onto a door.

Ok, a bit more seriously. In the Catholic tradition (and probably others, I just don't want to be read to be speaking on behalf of others), there's an emphasis on the examination of conscience. If done properly, through prayer and a true willingness to obey God's direction, I don't think a consensus among others is even a factor.

If called, an individual can act pursuant to God's "request" in a way that cuts against the consensus. There can even be a genuine disagreement among parties who have both discerned God's will through an examination of conscience. None of us know God's plan completely. The best we can hope for (IMHO) is to find His path for us individually.

There have been times that I have stood in opposition to "higher ranking" Catholics. It has been after much prayerful discernment about my role the matter. I don't pretend to know if I was right - I won't find that out until later. I just know that I believe my choices were consistent with what God was calling me to do.

Keep in mind, because slavery is kinda sorta approved in the Bible, there were a significant number of Christians who opposed abolition, too. Depending on geography, a consensus against slavery was not a certainty.

 

[JettaKnight]

ML really started with the intention of starting a dialog... but I think you knew that... and the humor was not lost on me.

Ok, a bit more seriously. In the Catholic tradition (and probably others, I just don't want to be read to be speaking on behalf of others), there's an emphasis on the examination of conscience. If done properly, through prayer and a true willingness to obey God's direction, I don't think a consensus among others is even a factor.

OK, I didn't say my opinion was well thought out...
We all have our blindspots. We all have issues of sin that we choose to ignore - this why Christian accountability is good.

Keep in mind, because slavery is kinda sorta approved in the Bible, there were a significant number of Christians who opposed abolition, too. Depending on geography, a consensus against slavery was not a certainty.

Oh on, it wasn't. It's incredibly frightening how many churches accepted it.
...which probably shoots a hole in my argument...


As to that issue of slavery... There was another thread where a member pointed out that the first lifetime slave in the colonies was owned by a black man. Which maybe me wonder about the differences of slavery over time in the colonies. (I never got an answer)

Anyways, I think we can all agree that slavery, as described in the NT, was in no way as grotesque as slavery in America in 1800. Or at least that's my understanding from watching Roots.

There's a huge problem in looking at how Paul dealt with a specific problem in a specific culture and not fully understanding his point.

Slaves, Women and Homosexuals offers a good explanation of how to deal with these passages.

 

[historian]

Anyways, I think we can all agree that slavery, as described in the NT, was in no way as grotesque as slavery in America in 1800. Or at least that's my understanding from watching Roots.

It was, in some (many?) ways worse. Slavery in the NT literally meant that you did not exist legally. It was all the horrors of American slavery without any mitigating effects of Christianity. It was beyond the pale of horror.

 

[historian]

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

More importantly, how do the laws, documents, and people interplay with one another. Once again, it is easy when the law is whomever is at the top makes the law. It is different when it is a representative democracy.

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

Then what? Do you obey the laws? Or the documents? Who do you owe what in a failed state?

 

[JettaKnight]

It was, in some (many?) ways worse. Slavery in the NT literally meant that you did not exist legally. It was all the horrors of American slavery without any mitigating effects of Christianity. It was beyond the pale of horror.

I'll take your word for it.

Of course, here, you really only existed partially, and that was more for political gain.

 

[historian]

I'll take your word for it.

Of course, here, you really only existed partially, and that was more for political gain.

True, but there is a lot of Christianity that has so infused society that it was better on the whole.

See Dominion by Tom Holland
https://smile.amazon.com/Dominion-M...ywords=dominion&qid=1595354966&s=books&sr=1-3

 

[T.Lex]

See Dominion by Tom Holland
https://smile.amazon.com/Dominion-M...ywords=dominion&qid=1595354966&s=books&sr=1-3

He's great in the Spider Man movies....

 

[JettaKnight]

More importantly, how do the laws, documents, and people interplay with one another. Once again, it is easy when the law is whomever is at the top makes the law. It is different when it is a representative democracy.



Then what? Do you obey the laws? Or the documents? Who do you owe what in a failed state?

Of course, IANAL, but if there's a law, then, well, that's the law. Follow it.



The Constitution enforces the federal government, it's not a law for you directly. If Congress violates the Constitution with a law, then they are the lawbreaker.

 

[HoughMade]

Of course, IANAL, but if there's a law, then, well, that's the law. Follow it.

The Constitution enforces the federal government, it's not a law for you directly. If Congress violates the Constitution with a law, then they are the lawbreaker.

...and beyond that, there are systems for redress within the law, both political and legal. For most people, this did not exist at the time Romans 13 (and Titus 3 and I Peter 2) were written. I am at a loss to understand how Christians had a responsibility to obey and respect the ruling authorities when they were the Romans and not now when we can, within the law, attempt to make the law more just.

 

[historian]

...and beyond that, there are systems for redress within the law, both political and legal. For most people, this did not exist at the time Romans 13 (and Titus 3 and I Peter 2) were written. I am at a loss to understand how Christians had a responsibility to obey and respect the ruling authorities when they were the Romans and not now when we can, within the law, attempt to make the law more just.

It is easier to obey something that is imposed upon you rather than something that you technically help create. The civil right movement was lead by Christians. Were they violating Romans 13?

 

[HoughMade]

It is easier to obey something that is imposed upon you rather than something that you technically help create. The civil right movement was lead by Christians. Were they violating Romans 13?

Again, I don't understand. Protesting and demonstrating in order to change laws is legal. Throwing a brick through a window is not. I'll let God judge the lunch counter sitters.

I will say this: interpreting Scripture through the lens of what we think is right regardless of what it says is dangerous.

 

[JettaKnight]

It is easier to obey something that is imposed upon you rather than something that you technically help create. The civil right movement was lead by Christians. Were they violating Romans 13?

I asked before, and forgive me, but I didn't get a straight answer - what is it that you say they did?


As far as "I technically created it", well there's no way you can ascribe the authorship of any laws that precedes my birth. Nor, do I feel responsible for any laws authored by the senator from CA, or even the senator from IN. We're not a true democracy. And if we were, Would I not still be obligated to abide by a law even if I voted nay?

I'm still not seeing an "out" just because the form of government is different.

 

[HoughMade]

Wait.

Under this analysis- it is immoral for Christians to disobey a dictator, but not immoral for them to disobey a duly elected government.

 

[2A_Tom]

Wait.

Under this analysis- it is immoral for Christians to disobey a dictator, but not immoral for them to disobey a duly elected government.

Well since we are the government it is our responsibility to oppose bad laws and lobby for good laws.

 

[JettaKnight]

Well since we are the government it is our responsibility to oppose bad laws and lobby for good laws.

Tell me if you think I'm wrong, but oppose does not mean to disobey.


Apart from some Quakers, I doubt you'll find anyone telling you that Christians should be informed and push for laws that align with God's laws.


But that's not really the issue, is it?

 

[2A_Tom]

Do you believe in Jury Nullification or Civil Disobedience?

I believe there are times for both, but they are few and far between.

 

[JettaKnight]

Do you believe in Jury Nullification or Civil Disobedience?

I believe there are times for both, but they are few and far between.

That's were I stand.

 

[HoughMade]

Well since we are the government it is our responsibility to oppose bad laws and lobby for good laws.

I agree.

Do you believe in Jury Nullification or Civil Disobedience?

I believe there are times for both, but they are few and far between.

Rarely...and none of those rare occasions have to do with asserting my rights.

 

[2A_Tom]

So, when the Government tells you you cannot speak freely you won't.

 

[HoughMade]

So, when the Government tells you you cannot speak freely you won't.

That hypothetical is a stretch. I obey the law unless the law tells me to do something that is specifically forbidden by the Scripture.