Re: Romans 13 -- ExUBF's Parlor_Free wheel as far as u can from UBF

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:49:29 02/24/05 Thu
Author: human
Subject: Re: Romans 13
In reply to: Mike K. 's message, "Romans 13" on 02:30:02 02/15/05 Tue

This is a very interesting topic to discuss. But it is also very difficult one for a sound argument to be presented. It seems that when the idea of authority and the concept of rebellion are applied to many practical cases, it is done more in the context of psychology and convention rather than in the context of sound reasoning and biblical teaching.

If one reads King James Version of Romans 13, I think one can get more insights. KJV reads, �1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.�

I think verse 3 tells us the nature of the authority God ordained. According to verse 3, we can say that God ordained every authority in the world for good works but not for evil. God ordained all authorities to carry out his justice. I think the point of Paul�s teaching is not the authority itself. Paul is teaching us the nature of the authority God necessarily ordained in this world. It is ordained for good works and against evil. In this sense we must submit to every authority that God ordained. I want to eventually say that God ordained his justice in ordaining authority. What God ordained is the rule of his justice, the rule of his law and it is not the rule of the one who is put in the position to carry out God�s justice.
Consider the following simple example. Let�s say there is a policeman named Hitler. He spots a man speeding. Hitler tries to stop the man to issue a ticket. But the man refuses to do so. In this case the man rebels against the legitimate exercise of Hitler�s authority. Now let�s say that the same Hitler tells a man to shoot a Jew. But the man refuses to do so. What should we say about it? What is the man refusing? Is he refusing authority? Or is he refusing to do evil? We should say the man is not refusing authority but refusing to do evil. Now let�s think about what Hitler is trying to do. Is the exercise of his authority for good works or for evil? If it is for good works, we conclude the exercise of his authority is legitimate. If it is for evil, we conclude it is abuse. If we say that God ordained Hitler�s authority to protect life, Hitler�s using his authority to kill a Jew is abuse of his authority. Since destroying human life is evil, we will consider �it depends� nonsense here, Hitler�s use of his authority to destroy Jews can never be justified. Even though he presents any justifiable arguments, such as God established Nazi authority to punish Jews for their sins, they cannot make evil good. So we conclude using authority to destroy life is evil.

Therefore using authority to abort a baby is an evil use of authority ordained by God because God ordained the authority for the good work to protect unborn babies. Using authority to encourage divorce is an evil use of authority ordained by God because God ordained the authority for the good work to protect marriages. Using authority to control a human being is an evil use of authority ordained by God because God ordained the authority for the good work to serve his people. Therefore if one refuses the authority not to abort a baby, one is not refusing the authority but refusing evil. If one refuses the authority not to divorce suggested in a subtle way by the authority, one is not refusing the authority but refusing evil. If one refuses the authority not to be controlled, one is not refusing the authority but refusing to be treated inhumanly because inhumane treatment is evil.

Therefore it is very important to consider the nature of the authority ordained by God, the nature of the exercise of the authority and the nature of refusal to submit to the authority before we can say anything about them. If one posts a critical opinion about one particular exercise of an authority, does it constitute a rebellion against the authority ordained by God? If so, why? If we study the Bible very carefully, we find that God is not so narrow-minded. One of the most conspicuous natures of God is that he is just. He considers the nature of the use of an authority and the nature of the refusal to submit to an authority. But this is not possible in some religious organization. Instead of encouraging sound and critical reasoning against the exercise of its authority, it only encourages the blind �ABSOLUTE� submission to its authority and labels any refusal to submit to its authority as rebellion or as "human thinking". As we cannot let humanism replace God, we cannot let a human absolute authority replace God either. Now imagine how dangerous that kind of authority could become. It can do anything in the name of God including forcing eye lid surgery, funding divorce with money offered to God, covering up evils done by people closely connected to the authority and even suicidal bombing.

So we can interpret the authority described in Romans 13 in this context that it is for good works but not for evil. That is why we have to submit to it. It is therefore absolutely necessary to carefully examine the nature of the exercise of any authority and the nature of the refusal to submit to authority. When we apply the idea to real life cases, sometimes it becomes very difficult to see clear cases of good or evil. That is why most of the time the argument turns into psychological one. So people end up following very simple and psychologically strong and persuasive argument such as �just do it� instead of sound biblical teaching. Especially it happens very often in many goal-oriented organization. But sound principle should never be replaced by productivity especially in a religious organization.

Acts 4:19-20 says, "19But Peter and John replied, �Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. 20For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." It looks as if it presents the opposite view of Romans 13. But I think it teaches the same thing. The point of Peter and John is not about authority and obedience. What's more fundamental than authority and submission is "whether it is right in God's sight." Peter and John are not encouraging rebellion against the religious leaders. I think they are saying that authority and submission should be considered in the context of "whether it is right in God's sight." So I claim that Peter, John and Paul are saying the same thing. A Bible study in a church should not teach blind absolute submssion to a church authority and force the church's organizational mindset. It should rather focus solely on helping its members know "whether it is right in God's sight" and practice "whether it is right in God's sight." Funding divorce with church money is plainly wrong. Some churches create a spiritual(?) environment so that a leader can use sunday messages to force a leader's unchecked personal philosophy and theology into one's mindset. Or they create environment to project the viewpoint of a small group of people who share and blindly follow the leader's authority onto the church members. It is plain political mind game. What we need is a viewpoint that is well balanced based on what the whole Bible teaches. This is not one person's job. It is not just one organiztion's job either.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Romans 13 -- Anonymous, 15:07:33 03/04/05 Fri