Friday, January 4, 2008
Revolution Convolution
One of the things I love about homeschooling is how it really makes me accountable for making sure my kids get both sides of the story. The thing I love about the curriculum we use is that it has such a well rounded approach to presenting "both sides of the story", at least attempting heartily to do so. For example, in our studies of the American Revolution we have read a very endearing account of King George the 3rd's upbringing and life, as well as that of George Washington's. Fictional novels have been read for enjoyment that portray both the hearts of the patriot colonialists and the hearts of the loyalists, the mindset of the proud red-coats as well as the deserters. It's enough to make a person's head spin when you can feel empathy and compassion for all involved. That said, I feel the need to vocalize something from a spiritual standpoint that I do not feel has been adequately voiced in all I have read. Being the chicken that I am, I will do it here and not on the largely american discussion forum for Sonlight Curriculum :D
Here goes. Last night, in pre-reading one of Shay's novels (actually not a curriculum scheduled novel but an extra reader I have scheduled from Focus on the Family's Sisters in Time series) I came across the following discourse where the young heroine's father and uncle are arguing their separate patriot/loyalist causes;
"Don't be fooled, Kate. The congress also said it's a Christian's duty to fight bad leaders. But the Bible says we are to obey our leaders."
"The Bible also says that rulers must be just and rule in the fear of God," Uncle Jack argued. "God wants kings to treat people well so they can live in peace and have good lives."
Harry stepped into the argument now. "Until King George rules the way the Bible says he should, we will serve no king but Jesus."
That's the Patriot's slogan, Kate remembered. The words always sent a shiver of awe and pride through her. It seemed a great thing to choose to serve Jesus. But she knew the words only angered Loyalists life FAther and Mama. After all, they served Jesus, too. They just disagreed on the way to go about doing that.
Exerpt from Kate and the Spies, Sisters in Time.
Well, as timeliness would have it, I just happened to be reading Romans 13 in my quiet time yesterday. Here is my NCV translation;
"All of you must yield to the government rulers. No one rules unless God has given him the power to rule, and no one rules now without that power from God. So those who are against the government are really against what God has commanded. And they will bring punishment on themselves. Those who do right do not have to fear the rulers; only those who do wrong fear them. Do you want to be unafraid of the rulers? Then do what is right and they will praise you. The rulers is God's servant to help you. But if you do wrong, then b e afraid. He has the power to punish; he is God's servant to punish those who do wrong. So you must yield to the government, not only because you might be punished, buty because you know it is right. This is also why you pay taxes. Rulers are working for God and give their time to their work. Pay everyone, then, what you owe. If you owe any kind of tax, pay it. Show respect and honor to them all."
Okay, now for the ruminating. I don't want to resort to absolutism or over generalizations, and I recognize this is a complex and multi-faceted issue. As I wrestle with the concept of revolutions and revolts being justifiable for christians I am faced with the following "problems".
The Bible commands christians to yield to the authorities, not just when those authorities are "justified" and ensuring the rights of the people.
The Bible teaches that rulers (wether they recognize it or not) have been placed in that position by God. I think of Pharoah, and Saul. Pharaoh was a tyrant if there ever was one, but in starting a revolution the Israelites would have "robbed" God of the chance to display His power and to free them by His hand and according to His plan. Likewise, when David had been annointed, he did not seek to take the life of Saul, but recognized Him still as the Lord's annointed, and that in God's time, Saul would surrender the throne and God would exalt David to the position He had chosen him for.
I don't see "protecting our rights or interests" ever expounded in the scripture, au contraire, I see forfeiting earthly rights and interests for heavenly rights and interests. I see God working mightily to redeem the underdog but not urging the underdog to "fight for his rights".
All this to say that I see how Britain was wrong and mis-used their power to rule the colonies and didn't protect or enforce the rights of the British citizens who lived there. I can see how in this light the revolution was "justifiable" if we look at things through worldly eyes. BUT, if I place Jesus and his disciples there (really not that hard to do when you think the Romans were ruling in Jesus day), and try to think what would have been his response, I can't see the refusal to pay taxes, the destruction of property that occured in the Boston Tea Party, the whole gory battle for independence as His way.
Are we called to "fight back", "protect our rights", "look out for our own best interests", or is that God's promise to us? Are we only to submit to our rulers when "they" are submitting? Are husbands only called to love their wives when they are lovable? Wives to respect their husband when they are respectable? (I used to think so until reading Love and Respect btw). How come we grasp unconditional love but not unconditional obedience to other mandates (excluding obviously anything that would be disobedience to God's moral standard)?
I think God was more than capable of overthrowing the British and bringing independence to America without the personal participation in rebellion of His followers against the sovreign that according to scripture He had placed in that position. God could have used the French, the unbelieving colonists, or anyone else of His choosing to bring independence to America.
Like I said, just ruminations, not claiming to have things boxed up. Now, 2 kids and a monopoly board are calling my name....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Good ruminations! . . . So why wouldn't you post it on one of the Sonlighters Club forums?
The entire Protestant Revolution* revolved around just such issues as you are ruminating on.
I haven't read the original sources, but, from all I've heard, these were real problems that people like John Knox had to deal with: What does a Bible-believing Christian say--and actually do (in the way of potential military action)--to or about the civil magistrate?
Using Romans 13 language: Is it really God who raises up a Joseph Stalin, a Mao Zedong or a Hitler (the former causing the deaths of 30 million or more innocents each; the latter being a mere piker at "only" 6 million)? However we answer the question about God's sovereign purpose being expressed through such men: is it the godly thing to not oppose such people? Or might their very presence be a "call to action," as it were, to use every means possible to foil their wicked plans?
Good post! :)
* The language of revolution to describe the Protestant movement of the 16th and 17th centuries (and, if we want to push the time frame a bit, back into the 14th and 15th centuries!) is not common in Protestant circles.
According to Harold Berman, however, there have been, several revolutions in the Western social/legal tradition: Gregory's Papal Revolution of the 11th century; the German/Protestant Revolution of the 16th century; the American Revolution; the French Revolution; the Russian Revolution . . . and, I think, two others, though I can't remember what they might be.
Each of these revolutions caused a fundamental shift in Western legal thinking.
I use the word "revolution" following Berman's lead.
>>So why wouldn't you post it on one of the Sonlighters Club forums?<<
Thanks for engaging with me John, it's an honor. To tell you the truth, I just wanted to be able to say my piece to aid my processing without having to worry about being read by a multitude of patriotic americans and then need to clarify and re-iterize things from a multitude of angles, if you know what I mean. One on one I can deal with, hundred to one not so well :D
>>The entire Protestant Revolution* revolved around just such issues as you are ruminating on.<<
Yes, I understand how the same discussion would come into play here. On the other hand, correct me if you believe I am wrong, this would not have been entirely the case if church and state had remained separate entities, no? If that were not so, which I ascertain from scripture it was indeed never intended to be so, well then the parallel fails because within the church I see very different scriptural mandates for submission than I do for civil leadership. Members of the body are called to submit to their spiritual leaders, yes, as wives are called to submit to their spouses, but at the same time you see scripture exhorting believers to submit one to another, and accountability and discipline as being a corporate affair. All that said, the reformation is something I ponder as well, but I don't want to get more confused by hauling that into my present political/civil ruminations.
>>What does a Bible-believing Christian say--and actually do (in the way of potential military action)--to or about the civil magistrate?<<
That's the question of the day in our house. My gut (spirit) response is;
"Slaves (citizens?), obey your masters (rulers?)here on earth with fear and respect from a sincere heart, just as you obey Christ.... Remember that the Lord will give a reward to everyone, slave or free, for doing good.... Finally be strong in the Lord and in His great power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can fight against the devil's evil tricks. OUR FIGHT IS NOT AGAINST PEOPLE ON EARTH BUT AGAINST RULERS AND AUTHORITIES AND THE POWERS OF THIS WORLD'S DARKNESS, AGAISNT THE SPIRITUAL POWERS OF EVIL IN THE HEAVENLY WORLD. That is why you need to put on God's full armor. Then on the day of evil you will be able to stand strong." excerpts from Eph 6:5-13
I find it interesting that first Paul urges submission to masters by the "underdog" and serving them as unto the Lord. Second, that we are not told to fight the "people" who are in the ruling positions on earth, but rather the spiritual forces that are energizing them. How should we do that? By taking up physical sword and shield physically fighting for the rights of the oppressed?
Also interesting, the armor of God is primarily defensive apart from what? The sword of the Spirit which is what? The Word of the Lord. So in other words, if we are to be on the offensive in regards to oppression our weapon is not earthly, but spiritual. It's not conquering the bodies of the oppressors, but conquering the spirits of as many earthly citizens as we can. That is where our victory lies, in strengthening the kingdom of the Father, and standing strong against the lies of the enemy that breed oppression.
Right after talking about taking up the sword of the spirit as our defense we are commanded to "Pray in the Spirit at all times with all kinds of prayers, asking for everything you need. To do this you must always be ready and never give up. Always pray for all God's people."
The Word, Prayer, Truth, Righteous Living, the Gospel, Faith. This is the armory of the believer.
>>Using Romans 13 language: Is it really God who raises up a Joseph Stalin, a Mao Zedong or a Hitler is it the godly thing to not oppose such people? Or might their very presence be a "call to action," as it were, to use every means possible to foil their wicked plans?<<
Clearly the powers of evil are at work in this world, but we can not deny that God is sovreign. God knew that Pharaoh would seek kill His son, would kill innocent children in the process, would oppress His people to the point where God's heart ached for them. Yet God had foreordained it, He had told Abraham it was to be hundreds of years before it came to pass, the New Testament tells us that He raised Pharaoh up to that purpose, that HE might be glorified. Who can understand the mind of the Lord?
The thing is, we think of things from a human standpoint. Human rights, human equality, human justice on human terms in human time. We have trouble understanding that this life is about the spirit, not the body. If I spend my life in chains, under a dictator's rule, under spiritual or physical oppression, yes, it is sad and unjust from a physical standpoint, but this life is not about the physical.
Take China for example. What christian body is richer in spirit than the Chinese? Truly this is where you see the Beatitudes in action. In any case, I don't see anywhere in scripture where "we" are called to take up physical arms and "demand our rights". Continuously I see the call to walk in the fruits of the spirit which are all contrary to battling the "enemy". Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, meekness, self control. To take up our cross, to be patient in suffering and enduring in hope. Hope for what? Earthly rights in this temporary life? No, our heavenly promise, our eternal heritage.
But now that I have said all that, I still do question certain aspects. We are told to defend the cause of the weak and oppressed, and nations that do not are condemned. This is where things get complex for me. So is that a civil mandate? Or is that for the "rulers" of the people. The pieces seem to fit best if that is a mandate for the "rulers" and condemnation falls on the rulers when they fail to defend the cause of the underdog. And God's condemnation will result in their being accursed and their ultimate downfall. How He brings that about is His affair, but I can't see Him urging the church per se to fight that battle for Him. Our battle is on our knees, not on the military front.
Hmmm, thanks John, it's a priviledge to engage with you. You don't know how thankful we are for your part in furthering the kingdom and enriching our lives through Sonlight Curriculum.
Just listened to a very timely sermon by R.C. Sproul this morning on oneplace.com. It is the second sermon in a series on Church and State, this one particularily is on civil obedience and touched on everything I have been mulling over. Not sure if you will see this John, or anyone else interested in this subject, but just had to post the link. Tomorrow the series will continue with the question of if and when there is ever a time to rebel against government authority. Can't wait to hear the rest!
www.oneplace.com/ministries/Renewing_Your_Mind/
Thanks. I'm "subscribed" to this post/thread, so I'll be interested to hear from you whatever-it-is you hear from Sproul! :-)
Ack, okay, I was hoping to just link to the broadcast/download but re-listening and jotting down notes won't hurt me either. And I listened to another good one while I washed supper dishes, I'll comment on that one too. Or if anyone wants to listen it's
oneplace.com/ministries/Truths_That_Transform/
something about politics and the church.
It's funny, based on our Sonlight readings I was leaning colonial on saturday based on my emotions and "that just wasn't fair" (of England to not recognize the colonists civil rights) but after todays sermons I'm back to "life ain't always fair".
Just off the top of my head one of the things that really stood out to me from todays messages was related to God's sovreignty in regards to even tyrants being in power. That biblical accounts show us God often ordaining/allowing/bringing about the oppression of his people when they were straying from Him.
Not only that, when the purpose of the oppression was served He was the one to break it and bring down the tyrant nation/ruler. Fascinating train of thought.
Dh asked me tonight (while watching The Patriot and the scene where the church men are being urged to fight physically and not just verbally by joining the militia) "Well, what would you have done? After all, at this point it's self defense, right?" Uh, yeah, but can't help but think that if they would have just payed some tea/sugar/stamp tax they wouldn't have had anything to defend themselves against? So in a sense I guess I see them as having dug their own grave.
Truth be told I would have payed my tax, made my plea to government and God but taken up the fight on my knees and creatively/peacefully (think Ghandi) rather than on the battlefield. Inadvertently I keep comparing the american attitude to Ghandi's attitude and thinking Ghandi's was more Christlike. Anyhoo, I'll post a summary of these messages at some point.
Notes from R.C. Sproul on Civil Obedience;
-Romans 13; locus classicus for the biblical understanding of the nature and task of earthly government and the duty of the believer towards such.
Here we have a Mandate/admonition/apostolic command for every soul to be subject or in submission to the governing authorities. Not an isolated teaching, Peter and Jesus taught that we should be models of civil obedience, to not be unruly/disrespectful toward governing authorities, rather we must bend over backwards to be obedient to the powers that be.
Keep in mind this is written to people under the oppression of the Roman government, a government that will later on execute Paul.
Why are we to be particularily scrupulous to civil obedience? Because there is no authority except from God. We are to submit for Christ's sake and as unto Christ according to Peter. If God sets an authority between Himself and me, this person is God appointed to be in authority over me. If I show no respect to the governing authority my disrespect passes beyond that person and reaches to God who has appointed him. All authority rests ultimately in God.
God the Father gives all authority in heaven and earth to Christ. Christ is the prime minister of the universe, or biblically speaking, the King of kings.
If I am disobedient to my civil authority I am disobedient to Christ, who has commanded me to submit to them.
-archenemy of the faith is lawlessness. AntiChrist is defined as the man of lawlessness. Sin is a political matter, not in the sense of day to day politics but in the sense of being related to government/authority and submission to that government/authority.
Our indiv. obedience to governing authority is never a single isolated act, it is all connected to the transcendant source of all authority. No authority except from God. Notice he does not say that the authorities are Godly authorities, he says only they are *appointed* by God. God raises governments up and brings them down.
The OT is filled with references to people who are rebellious to God being given corrupt rulers to struggle beneath the oppression of these rulers. Hitler could not have ruled for five minutes without the providence of God. That doesn't mean that Hitler was good or that God sanctions all that corrupt ruler does, every King will be judged by God. Even ungodly rulers are put there for a reason, God raises up and God brings them down. God sent Israel into captivity, God delivered them from it. God uses corrupt rulers as instruments to chasten, more wicked nations are used to punish less wicked nations for their purification.
Careful, we should not say "God is on our side", as christians, the question should be "are we on God's side?"
David is a prime example of christian submission to corrupt leadership when Saul in his madness is chasing the Lord's annointed in continuous attempts to murder him. David recognizes that Saul was annointed also, and refused to lift his hand against the Lord's annointed. (despite the fact this could have been called self defense).
We bristle to hear "we must", "we ought". We don't like to be bossed by anyone. We want to be empowered, to be given "suggestions", not mandates, (especially mandates we feel infringe on our "human rights").
We have to look at this topic through a grid of a christian-life worldview, not through a humanist point of view.
To be continued...
Notes from R.C. Sproul's message on The Sword and the Keys
both institutions (church/state) have been ordained by God to combat and protect against evil but in two different capacities. One has been given the sword, one the keys.
Martin Luther made a distinction between the two (church and state), but through the middle ages the distinction was blurred, the state had much authority in the state of the church.
Paul is not unaware that government can be or become corrupt, he is clarifying their duty/role to promote justice and to punish evil (romans 13). God never gives the state the right to do wrong. Justice takes place when righteousness is rewarded and wickedness is punished. We should not live in fear of the civil magistrate because if we are doing what is right and good we will receive praise. We only need fear the government if we are transgressing their laws.
This presupposes that the magistrate is operating justly. There are governments that will endorse evil practices/principles and opress goodness and cause the righteous to suffer. History is replete with examples. (hopefully he will expand on the role of the christian in such situations in one of the upcoming segments, this is a seven part series).
Paul says the magistrate does not *bear the sword* in vain. Critical passage in Romans 13. The *power of the sword* is given to the civil magistrate, not to the church. The church does not carry out her mission through coersion or military conquest. When you see the chief universal emblem of christianity you see the cross, when you see the emblem of the Qu'ran you see the scimmitar. In the christian framework the church is not given the power of the sword.
What is the power of the sword? The simplest definition of government is the right to use force (enforce)make it's citizens comply to law. God arms the officers of the state with this authority. First picture of this is the angel outside the garden of Eden with the sword, exercising force of restraint if necessary to prevent reentry into the garden.
That power is not given to the church, our sphere of influence and authority is spiritual, it is ministerial. The pen is mightier than the sword.... in our case the WORD is mightier than the sword. Christ came not with a sword. WE have a division of labor that is spelled out between the church and the state.
WEstminster confession of Faith chap 23 section 3 "civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments or in the least interfere in the matter of faith." Even in Israel there was a distinction in the role given to the priest from that role given to the King.
Most tragic story is found re King Uzziah who reigned for over 50 years, one of the greatest kings who brought about reforms, committed to Godliness but died in shame having been removed from God by the throne because of the fatal flaw of assuming for himself the authority to administer the sacrifices there. He usurped the role of the priest under the authority of the crown.
"or the powers of the keys of the kingdom of heaven." power of the keys, Christ gives the keys to the apostle Peter, the church receives the keys, not the state.
when the civil magistrate assumes the power of the keys it is at that point in defiance against God.
"it is the duty of the magistrate to protect the church of our common Lord without giving preference to any denomination of christians above the rest."
Written in the 1600's, a principle emerging with clarity out of the protestant reformation. The church was called to pray for the state, support the state, the state called to guarantee the liberty of the church and protect the church from those that would seek to destroy it, without favouritism.
Churches have "courts" if you will, meant to function without the intrusion of the civil court, something being blurred more and more in our society today.
WE can not approach things from a cultural viewpoint. WE need to get our signal and viewpoint not from culture but from the Word. What is the church supposed to be about, what is our mission, what is the mission of the secular government? We are called to be a critic of the state when the state fails to obey it's mandate (protect/maintain/support) human life.
This criticism can be muddled in the minds of the world. They may see the church trying to force the government to support the moral standards of the church. When the church complains about abortion laws the church is not asking the state to be the church, they are asking the state to be the state, to protect and uphold the sanctity of life, which is their primary duty.
Hm.... having trouble processing this one;
John Quincy Adams;
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of christianity."
From the message; The Bible and Politics Part 2; Dr. D. James Kennedy
oneplace.com/ministries/Truths_That_Transform/
Wow. Jaw just about hit the floor as I was washing dishes this morning to part 5 of R.C. Sproul's series. Todays broadcast is called "An Instrument of Evil". Imagine my reaction when the main text was taken from none other than Ephesians 6! Kind of affirming that all my initial comments and supporting passages are being re-iterated throughout this series, uncanny almost!
Anyway, the sermon specifically talks about people like Nero, Hitler, Stalin, being instruments of evil and corrupt government. Apparently one of Hitlers journal entries even described a pact he made with the devil... whoah, not to mention the swaztika being being purposefully designed to display a twisted cross?
Touched on socialism, the difference between equality and equity (interesting, still mulling over that).
This one talks alot about social justice and what that really means.
Now he didn't go so far as to say what a christian is to do on a practical level when the civil magistrate becomes an instrument of evil, I imagine he will delve into that more tomorrow or in the final part. However, it was clear from the text that our battle is not fleshly, but spiritual, therefore our weapons logically, would be spiritual weapons... can't believe I have to wait til monday to here the next part.... argh....
www.oneplace.com/ministries/Renewing_Your_Mind/
Post a Comment