Is Chuck Colson Really Making a “Call to Arms” in America?

John,

I’d question why such a public prayer would have to be made. It goes against the nature of Matthew 6, and seems unnecessary for any number of reasons. What good would it do for the world? What would the purpose of that act be?

As to the above video…I still don’t understand what the dignity of marriage is, and how it is something Christians in particular should worry about in relation to the government.

God makes a marriage what it is, not government licensing. Why do we strive so heavily to keep the sanctity of marriage? What is it really? What does the government and its views on homosexuals unions have to do with it?

Was this a shout out to Christians or to the Tea Party?

How much civil disobedience and ‘freedom of religious expression’ was advocated for in the graeco-roman world? Unfortunately, this is continuining product of fundamentalism entanglement with political process. The position this video takes confuses the call to obey God rather than man with the constitutional right to do so. They are separate issues yet there is the sense that America owes Christians every right possible. Never saw that in the early church.

Thanks, JohnL. Marriage and religious “freedom” are not things that the government have power over.

A call to civil disobedience is not the same as a “call to arms”. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote:

“We are a nation that worships the frontier tradition, and our heroes are those who champion justice through violent retaliation against injustice. It is not simple to adopt a credo that moral force has as much strength and virtue as the capacity to return a physical blow; or that to refrain from hitting back requires more will and bravery than the automatic reflexes of defense.”

I don’t really see that the country is headed to a point where religious freedom becomes imperiled and civil disobedience is required. Some suggest that laws legalizing same-sex marriage would impinge on religious freedom by requiring pastors to marry same-sex couples, or requiring churches to accept same-sex couples into membership. If this sort of thing comes to pass, then civil disobedience would be required, by disobeying the offending law. For example, pastors should refuse to be forced to marry same-sex couples. And go to jail if necessary (as did MLK).

Another thing that MLK wrote: “Those who assert that evil means can lead to good ends are deceiving themselves.”

Amen.

Civil disobedience, revolution, or any type of resistance comes about because there is a government that has become so large and intrusive that the felt need for these actions arises.

Instead of fiddling around the edges and calling for resistance to this or that offense we need to recognize the root problem, christian and non-christian alike, that government is way to large and we need to call for its drastic downsizing. Any government should be limited to the protection of rights. A right being defined as one’s person or property, not other’s property.

Here’s one example. The very existence of public (government run) schools creates conflicts such as prayer in schools. Government by its nature pits one group against another. If all schools were funded privately this issue would be decided by the school administrators and parents. Those who didn’t like the decision could find a school more to their liking. A thousand other examples of government created conflict could be cited.

So at some point have they chosen to ignore Romans 13, praying for all men even leaders in 1 Tim. 2:1-4 and Jesus’ statement of rendering to Caesar in Matt 22:15-22, etc. Considering how the rulers at the time had very little in checks and balances and yet Jesus and Paul wrote these statements at the time, what excuse do we have as believers in America where there are checks and balances in place? This doesn’t mean that Jesus and Paul agreed with the things going on with the rulers at the time, they simply had a bigger picture (the kingdom of Heaven) and knew, in the end, who was ultimately in control of all things. If believers truly believe in the sovereignty of God, why does it seem to disappear when it comes to American politics?

Jesus spoke of being blessed when enduring persecution, and rejoicing in the knowledge that the world persecuted the prophets of the past, as well. (Matthew 5:10-12) It seems the only Christians who don’t seem to expect to suffer for Christ are here, in America. We are told, though, by Jesus and other in the New Testament, to expect persecution if we are living a godly life. It is true that the apostles and the early church engaged in “civil disobedience” when the policies of the rulers were in direct opposition to the will of God, especially when those rules did everything they could to censure the “gospel.” However, that disobedience was not in the form of “taking up arms”. They knew of Jesus’ admonition that his kingdom was not of this world. Those early believers also knew, full well, that when they had to disobey the government, in order to be faithful to God, that persecution was going to come. Are we any better than our apostolic forebears?

Greg said,

It is true that the apostles and the early church engaged in “civil disobedience” when the policies of the rulers were in direct opposition to the will of God, especially when those rules did everything they could to censure the “gospel.”

True! And the difference here is that civil disobedience was not a call for the government to reconcile their policies for the comfort of practicing beliefs. Not that I advocate for less freedom but neither do I see a biblical prescription to correct it.

It seems to me that the Rom 13 (and related passages) tell us how to live under the laws established by whatever government sits over us. But I do not beleive that these passages tell us to ignore it when that government breaks those same laws. If our government tells us we have to obey it when the laws that govern that government tell us we don’t, it seems to me that to disobey the government and obey the law of the land is the righteous thing to do. This seem to be the core of righteous civil disobedience. We should, as Christians, always resist law breaking and law breakers. And our resistance should be limited to what the law of the land permits us to do in our resistance.

However, if our government decides that we cannot practice our faith consistent with Biblical law, then we must disobey it. Peter said that in Acts 4. If the government makes that decision and it is against the laws that govern the government, we must disobey it.

Jail seemed to be part of the early church life. We should not be afraid to resist a government that is breaking the establsihed law of the land and/or Biblical law. Resistance = civil disobedience.

Obviously the difficulty comes in how we determine what our government is doing that is illegal and what it is doing that requires us to break Biblical law. Paying taxes that go to pay for abortions probably falls into the catagory of civil disobedience on both level.

America is also different than the world of the New Testament in that the people are responsible for the government. This is built into the constitution and in the way the government is constructed. Not to mention the right to bear arms.

My point is that to do nothing is going against the government since we are the government in a representative republic (democracy).

I am not saying that I am “there”, but if the civil war was justified, if the civil rights movements were justified, when do we “free” the unborn? How much more justified is that when 1 million babies a year.

“America is also different than the world of the New Testament in that the people are responsible for the government. This is built into the constitution and in the way the government is constructed. Not to mention the right to bear arms.

My point is that to do nothing is going against the government since we are the government in a representative republic (democracy).”

CMP… I was thinking the same thing. Do we allow our constitutional rights to be slowly eroded and stripped from us because we are to render what is Ceasars when we currently have the opportunity to speak out.

I just read recently the article of the Catholic prof who was let go and lost his tenure at the illiois university because he was arguing from his position the danger in homosexuality and someone felt he was using hate speach. For me to be in a school setting and I know the dynamic of the class I wouldnt take offense if we are discussing a subject that I may not agree with. How are we to learn?

If the Bible tells us how to live, it tells ALL men how to live, including governmental bodies, civil servants, police and the army. No one is exempt from God’s instruction and Law, and no one, not even a government has authority to alter God’s Ten Utterances from Mount Sinai. These Ten “commandments” define the very nature and identity of the God who is to be feared, respected and worshipped.

By intrinsic nature, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” automatically implies upholding marriage as God in his publicly revealed word defines it. There is no mandate or authority for ‘authorities’ to alter it.

When people redefine marriage in order to loophole themselves out of a conviction for breaking the most solemn commands, they wreak wrath upon themselves and all those whom they mislead.

When the Apostles stood up to secular and religious authorities and disobeyed them, it was a blatant act of defiance and rebellion, no matter how ‘peaceful’ the appearance. Gamaliel and friends could just as easily quoted “Rebellion is as wicked as witchcraft!” and had them stoned.

What justified their outright defiance and rebellion was (a) a universal principle that all people must obey God over man at all times. This truth condemns Nazis who claimed to ‘obey orders’ and justifies lawbreakers who hid Jews from being murdered.

The Principle of obeying God justifies rebellion and defiance as such, and this has nothing to do with whether or not it is clothed in ‘passive resistance’ or ‘non-violent protest’ or ‘peaceful assembly’, or whether it is outright physical and violent in nature, such as when a policeman shoots a man about to commit murder, or when a man defends his home, family and children against murderous invaders. Violence is allowed, and even commanded repeatedly in the Bible to defend the innocent and uphold justice. Doing nothing to stop evil-doers, is what is also repeatedly condemned, not violence or force as a tool.
…

Ultimately I agree with what a lot of others have said here. The entanglement of the church with the government has never turned out well for Christianity. Perhaps the worst thing that happened to the Church was Constantine which moved Christianity from being the outsiders to being those in power.

When Evangelicalism was started it was initially a slightly left of center movement that was mostly apolitical. It wasn’t until the “Moral Majority” and “Culture Wars” that Evangelicals became a right of center movement that was heavily involved in politics. I’m sorry, but I can’t help but think that Evangelicalism and the Church in general would be in a better place right now if we had stuck to prophetically preaching the Gospel in a fallen culture instead of trying to grab as much political power as possible in order to force our agenda and morality on unbelievers.

The government any given Christian lives under may give them certain rights and may not. Regardless it is certainly not our place to take up the sword and become Caesar to demand our “rights” and then force others to follow our way. Jesus will get lost every time we do this.

Nazaroo,
Both Jesus and Paul lived in a culture where homosexuality and sexual immorality was probably more pervasive then our culture (seriously just read Plato sometime). Neither one of them encouraged Christians to take up the sword and overthrow the government. In fact they told them to do the opposite. So long as the government isn’t forcing them personally to do something contrary to God’s law (i.e. practice homosexuality themselves, worship Caesar as god, etc.) they were to follow the laws of the Roman Empire and pray for its leaders. Only when the laws command us to sin are we allowed to disobey them and in that case it isn’t us disobeying the law with the purpose being to change it, it is us simply obeying God instead.

Dear Michael: Thank you for your personal response.

In my view historical evidence is extremely doubtful that Roman culture and a more rampant, open and pervasive homosexual culture than the modern West, entrenched now by powerful rich homosexual industrialists who form the Sodomite core of the 500 elite families that rule international trade, commerce, industry and the military.
Reading Plato is an absurdity next to “Gay parades”, daytime television stuffed with pro-gay and pro-lesbian propaganda, paid for by these creeps.

As you are well aware, the case with Paul and Jesus is not so clear-cut as you would like it. Jesus told His followers in the end, “go and buy swords…” an ambiguous and dark statement at best, and one that cannot simply be swept under the rug as a ‘simple fulfillment of a line of prophecy’.

The book of Mark, acknowledged to be the primal gospel by most, portrays a Jesus far harsher than modern liberals have painted. Jesus publicly takes on the issue of marriage for instance, and ramps up the strict conservativeness of it far beyond the lax morals of the Jews in His time. He virtually rejects easy divorce. How many preachers are willing to preach Jesus’ actual position on this today, after Erasmus has virtually changed the very definition of marriage, to accomodate a nation of adulterers and adulteresses? Again, Jesus plainly upholds the Law of stoning for dishonouring parents in a life-threatening and humiliating way. And these are not anomalies, they are the central core of Jesus’ teaching as Mark portrays it.

Above, someone gave the example of “Rendering unto Caesar…”, but have turned it into some kind of support for the government. What an outright rending of its plain context. Jesus said this, not to support Roman occupation or Jewish authority to collect taxes, but to escape an obvious trap with words more slippery than soap. More than this, Jesus publicly humiliated the authorities with this response…

Thanks Naz,

My point was that the way our government is set up is different than the Roman government seeing as how we “are” the government, being “governed by the people.” Therefore, we have a biblical mandate to make changes.

If we lived under a different governmental system, I think Christians could be more passive. But in our government the axiomatic statement, “the only way for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing” is certianly in play. At least I don’t know how else to look at it.

…Jesus intended to leave the dark message to ring in the ears of the crowd: “…and render to God what is God’s”…

Who does own the money in your pocket? The government, or God? A dead president or queen? or the Creator of the Universe?

Jesus leaves it for you to figure out, and covert operations are plainly open to individual conscience.

No pharisee was fooled after letting Jesus’ words sit in his mind for a few moments. If Jesus had meant to support gov. taxes, He would have needed no clever but ambiguous saying: He would have just said: “Pay your taxes.”

Can anyone credibly make a case of ‘caution’, ‘fear’ or ‘timidity’ in Jesus’ response? The man who openly walked into His own crucifixion for political/religious purpose?

When Jesus said this, He said, in essence: “Let him who has ears, hear…” ” – I’m not unconditionally supporting Roman taxes: or I’d say so. I’m not handing Myself over for arrest at the moment either. I’ve got a better plan. Read my lips.”

peace
Nazaroo

Well said, Michael T.

It is true that we have many more opportunities for involvement in government than they did in the first century. And we should avail ourselves of our political voice and vote. But there is a big difference between being a responsible steward of our constitutionally-provided involvement in our government, and feeling that we are somehow responsible to force through change to mold a particular nation to fit the truth of God. That’s not a responsibility that God has given us.

We shouldn’t be surprised if there are times when we exercise our political voice, but that political voice is still in a distinct minority. If that happens, I see no biblical support for seeking to bring about change through force. The Civil War was not simply a struggle over slavery; it’s much more complex historically than that. But still, this was a war fought by governments (on both sides) not by churches or individual Christians. And a lot of the tax money that the first Christians were instructed to pay to Rome went directly to the support of idolatrous, blasphemous worship of false gods. There is no scriptural clause to pay taxes except when the government may be doing things that are unbiblical.

It’s clear from Scripture that we cannot allow a human authority to force us personally to sin or to keep us from worshiping God. We obey God, and if we suffer legal or cultural consequences, then that’s a price we’ll pay. But a call to force through changes to an immoral government (either by political/cultural intimidation or violent revolution) is significant by its absence in Scripture.

Dear Mike:

I think I see what you are saying: modern democracy is different than ancient Roman Emperorship.

But I have absolutely no faith whatever in your claim. I don’t believe we have a democracy, and I don’t believe that a democracy empowers anyone. I believe that democracy is a way for rich industrialists to operate outside any government control, by diluting everyone’s power to nothing: (one man, one worthless vote, claiming more power or authority would be usurping the power of others, so the theory of democracy says).

Governments are always run by crooks, and the rich, who sometimes rule cruelly, at other times less so, but always carelessly and selfishly. Romans 12-13 seems like an obvous interpolation or a political ruse, to protect Christians from persecution.

peace
Nazaroo

Curt, I heartily concur with this statment

It is true that we have many more opportunities for involvement in government than they did in the first century. And we should avail ourselves of our political voice and vote. But there is a big difference between being a responsible steward of our constitutionally-provided involvement in our government, and feeling that we are somehow responsible to force through change to mold a particular nation to fit the truth of God. That’s not a responsibility that God has given us.

I do see CMP’s point of responsible participation but that should not suppose there should be a mandate for alignment with a biblical worldview. It would be nice if that were the case though. The US is not ancient Rome but neither is it a democracy supportive of Christian obligations.

Nazaroo,

Do I understand you correctly to be saying that Romans 12-13 is an interpolation? If so, it’s very likely that you will arrive at a different conclusion from many others posting here, since you are not reasoning from the same scriptural standard. On what basis do you excise Romans 12-13?

It seems to me that we’re may still be missing the big picture here. Civil Disobedience does not equate to civil war. Civil Disobedience is when I decide to obey the scriptures against the civil authorities. The problem we need to solve is, does obeying the scripture include disobedience to a governing body when that body is violating the established law of the land. None of believe we are to go passively along when we are being told to disobey a clear Biblical mandate. If we’re told to practice open marriage of course we won’t do it. But when our government starts breaking the law of the land, whatever it is, are we to go along passively?

What if, as Woodrow Wilson did, our President issues an Executive Order to imprison, without due process, any and all political dissidents. He further requires us “quiet” citizens to turn in anyone we hear speaking against the government. In this case, the government body would be asking you and I to participate in breaking the constitution but not a simple clear Biblical mandate. What would you do? No, better, what is right for you to do?

“The US is not ancient Rome but neither is it a democracy supportive of Christian obligations.”

Amen.

I would content, BTW, that when we are being told by our government to do thus and so and it is clearly unconstitutional when are obligated, by Biblical mandate and principle, to disobey?

In simple terms, if a policeman stops you and then tell you to get out of the car and take off all your clothes (There is no clear Biblical mandate to keep your clothes on.), what do you do? He is the duly appointed civil authority but he is telling you to do something he has no legal right to make you do. If you don’t he may arrest you and put you in jail. Civil disobedience at its lowest level but it would be civil disobedience nonetheless.

When you take this up to the level of Executive Orders or even laws pased by Congress that are unconstitutional, what should we do?

Rick,

I understand what you’re saying, but this is still only a difference of degree. The government would still be telling you and me to do something that doesn’t just violate our constitutional rights, but our consciences. It would be instructing us to do what we feel is immoral. We don’t resist the idea of informing on someone’s political ideology or taking off our clothes in public because it’s against the constitution! And this is still a somewhat passive form of resistance rather than the overt, active resistance that some have seemed to advocate.

Let me give you another example. Many who have strong libertarian inclinations are offended by being forced to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets. They feel that these laws are unconstitutional. If they genuinely feel this way , are they then required to disobey these laws because they’re unconstitutional? Scripturally, are they even allowed to disobey for this reason? Does the Bible say that we are only to be subject to the governing authorities when they are consistent with their nation’s own establishing principles and constitutions?

I am not saying that we should rebel or even act in civil disobedience (whatever that may look like). Neither am I saying that the Church should be involved. Neither am I saying that it is the “Christian” thing to do.

I am pondering when we as Americans (in the case of Christians who are motivated by biblical values) have an obligation to take a stand and cross some lines when 1 million infants are being deprived of their constitutional right to live by the government? Never?

Maybe we don’t agree with the civil rights movements or the violent abolition of slavery?

If we do agree with such when is it time to do something about babies? If we did would not history see it as a heroic movement that was necessary to make slaves free? Blacks equal? Why or why not?

I don’t know but I am interested in this discussion.

Rick,

Tacking on to what i just wrote: We are either dealing with issues that are strictly questions of constitutionality [e.g. helmet laws], or issues that involve moral views of what is right and what is wrong. When it comes to issues of morality, how is our morality as Christian believers not biblically informed? And if it is, then is it not an issue of obeying God rather than men?

If the Bible tells us how to live, it tells ALL men how to live, including governmental bodies, civil servants, police and the army. No one is exempt from God’s instruction and Law, and no one, not even a government has authority to alter God’s Ten Utterances from Mount Sinai. These Ten “commandments” define the very nature and identity of the God who is to be feared, respected and worshipped.

A covenant made with a single nation of people, and to be lived and followed by them when they dwell in the promised land of Israel under a Levitical priesthood, is… prescribed for and commanded to “ALL men…governmental bodies, civil servants, police and the army” – EVERYWHERE and in ALL nations?

Hmmmmm…..

The last line should be: “If we did would not history see it as a heroic movement that was necessary in the same way as movements necessary to make slaves free? Blacks equal?

Curt,

We cannot just let our conscience be our guide. That is somewhat arbitrary at best. The laws of God and man should dictate our behavior.

MCP and Curt,

You are touching the point that makes this whole issue difficult. The point is, where is the line? We all know there is one and we should be willing to die or go to jail to avoid crossing that line.

I still contend that the law of the law should dictate our behavior as long as it is consistent with and not in violation of the Scriptures. But when the government insist that you do that which violates the law of the land, then you are just as obligated to disobey that government as you would be if that government asked you to disobey a clear Biblical mandate.

Comments?

CMP,

I hear what you’re saying. I think we would all agree on the concern for the unborn. And I don’t think any of us would want to say that Christians have not been doing anything up until now. Would you agree? So I guess my question is: What more can we do? What line is it that we’re debating crossing? We can’t really sort out the appropriateness of crossing a line, until we know what line we’re talking about.

And one more question: Is there any biblical precedent for Christians preventing the world from disobeying God’s laws?

Where do we distinguish our responsibility as a citizen of a certain nation and our responsibility as part of the kingdom of God?

This was not addressed in the video, but it does pertain to how Christians should react to the government. What about when it comes to Obama’s presidential assassination program?

Are Christians just supposed to sit by and allow him to have absolute power to take someone’s life? Any U.S. Citizen “suspected” (notice I didn’t say convicted or proven, but suspected) of terrorism will be assassinated without any questions, or without any witnesses or due process.

In my opinion this is murder, and something Christians should speak out against. i was told by someone, “Even though we don’t agree with the president, he is still our ‘Commander in Chief’, and we should respect his decisions.” Where do we draw the line at respecting those decisions? I think this would be one of those issues.

Nazaroo,

1. “Sodomite core of the 500 elite families that rule international trade, commerce, industry and the military.”

I love conspiracy theories.

2. “Reading Plato is an absurdity next to “Gay parades”, daytime television stuffed with pro-gay and pro-lesbian propaganda, paid for by these creeps.”

It was even worse. In Plato’s time men having sex with boys was mentioned in his writings without even a blush. It was so accepted and pervasive that they didn’t need to be shouting about their lifestyle choices from the rooftops. The fact that there even is a “pro-homosexual” agenda in this country shows that it isn’t even near the level of acceptance that there was in ancient Greece and Rome where it was accepted by everyone and practiced by a large portion of the society. In Plato’s time even homosexual pedophiles were accepted.

3. “Romans 12-13 seems like an obvous interpolation or a political ruse”

Do you have any textual variants or textual criticism to support this claim? There is no reputable source of which I am aware that supports this being an interpolation (like in the case of the Pericope Adulterae).

Rick,

“We cannot just let our conscience be our guide.”

I’m not sure what you mean by attributing this to me. My point was there is a profound difference in the government forcing me to do what violates my biblically-informed conscience and what simply violates my constitutional rights.

“But when the government insist that you do that which violates the law of the land, then you are just as obligated to disobey that government as you would be if that government asked you to disobey a clear Biblical mandate.”

Obligated in what way? According to your political ideology? Or obligated before God? Can you give me some Scripture to back up this obligation? How would you fit this into Romans 13?

CMP,

As to your question here,

“If we did would not history see it as a heroic movement that was necessary in the same way as movements necessary to make slaves free? Blacks equal?”

I see this as a separate issue. The fight for civil rights were to uphold what was granted under the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that grants rights to uphold a Christian worldview, only that we should have freedom of religious expression.

With respect to the unborn, this is indeed a dilemma. We would declare the unborn to have rights afforded under the constitution but that presupposes a worldview that the government does not support.

CMP,
Since you specifically address the abortion issue I’ll respond to that. First off whether we like it or not abortion has been declared a Constitutional right and no matter how we pack the Supreme Court is is exceptionally unlikely that Roe v. Wade (actually the more important case is Planned Parenthood v. Casey – but most don’t know that) will ever be overturned completely. The best we can hope for from the courts is to limit the conditions under which an abortion can be obtained (i.e. first trimester only, requiring parental consent for minors, etc.). Furthermore even if we did overturn Roe and Casey that would only move the fight down to the State level where at least half of states would still allow abortion.

As a result the only option to end abortion is for Christians to completely seize control of the Federal Government and three-quarters of the state governments in order to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion. In essence we would be taking up the sword and forcing our religious beliefs on the country at large. I simply don’t think this would turn out well for the church (it hasn’t in the past). Furthermore it would probably just simply force abortions underground and not eliminate the practice.

I would humbly suggest that there are many other methods that are likely to have more success and less public backlash then trying to overthrow Roe and Casey when it come to reducing the number of abortions in this country.

At the risk of opening up a can of worms, we are assuming the rightness of the civil rights movement because of the way it’s perceived culturally. (I include myself in that.) Just because something works, doesn’t mean that it’s right. We may need to take another look at the methods used. I know even asking this will sound sacrilegious, but do we see any precedent in Scripture encouraging sit-ins?

I will say this:

If all of the Christians in the US had been truly living out the love of Christ to all of their neighbors, then the civil rights movement would probably have been unnecessary. Sadly, the church bears part of the responsibility for the conditions leading up to the cvil rights movement.

First, Colson is only addressing the issue of religious freedom. Religious freedom is obviously one in which the Christian can physically do something to protest an intrusive law. Reading the 10 commandments out loud in a capitol building for example, would be one means of doing this, among many others. This is similar to MLK and specifically Rosa Parks physically going places and doing things that the law forbade them to do at the time.

Second, this issue of freedom of religion is different from the specific issues of abortion and homosexuality. If I as a Christian want to stop abortions, unless I’m pregnant, which I’m not, there is no way of practicing civil disobedience outside of the polling booth (yes, protests are another way but have never proven effective). The same goes for the homosexuality issue. The only way to fix those problems that we as individuals or as the Church face is to actually get serious about choosing proper representation, instead of being a faithful democrat or republican and voting the party line with no knowledge of the person being voted for.

Unfortunately, I have little hope for this kind of civil disobedience because we worship the media in America and they control the brainwaves of the masses, feeding us fluff and opinion. An uninformed populace is more easily controlled, and Washington on both sides of the aisle knows this.

Lisa,

You said: “The fight for civil rights were to uphold what was granted under the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that grants rights to uphold a Christian worldview, only that we should have freedom of religious expression.”

I am not saying that we should fight to uphold a Christian worldview. My comments have specifically to do with the human rights of the unborn. While it is true that the government does not support the rights of the unborn, neither did it at one time support the rights of slaves, blacks, or women. The women issue, as far as I know, worked itself out in peaceful ways, but the other two were brought about only through disobedience to government and, sometimes, violence.

As I said before, I don’t know what the “line” is. I don’t know what civil disobedience looks like with regard to protecting the unborn. I know that with 1 million babies being killed a year, and without their voices being heard, our tolerance for this is much easier to come by. After all, they can’t protest or act with civil disobedience. It is easy to just let it go as their deaths happen in private clinics with no news agencies giving the play by play.

When there is only one person bombing abortion clinics, we see this a lunacy (as I do). But what if there was an uprising of millions who were engaged in such an activity? Would you join due to the numbers + ideology? What if thousands of these people were killed in the act by the government for their rebellion? What if this spurred the media to pay attention and begin to make this issue a top priority, with the result that people were educated on what is really happening and could no longer ignore it? What if this made the government change its laws? If nothing else, what if it made Texas succeed from the Union and start its own country? Would you move there if welcomed?

Certainly these are extreme example and I am not advocating such action(s). I just always think of these “what ifs?” I wonder what I would do. I don’t know.

I don’t think a Christian in America can hide behind the Rom 13 argument (as I see so many doing). The constitution was written to protect the people from the government. When it goes in reverse, we have the constitutional obligation to do something about this, whatever the cost, whatever the religion.

While it is true that the government does not support the rights of the unborn, neither did it at one time support the rights of slaves, blacks, or women. The women issue, as far as I know, worked itself out in peaceful ways,

The same could be said for the church re: what it did not at one time support. Hopefully some day the church will give equal rights and standing to women, too. 😀 😮 😕

Curt,

These words “…all what is due them…” from the passage below seems clear to be to be an overarching principle in determining how we should obey or disobey civil authorities. We are not to obey them if what we are being told to do is not within the realm of “what is due them”.

Take that truth to America. Our governing authority is delegated to individuals by a constitution. Here the law is King, not the King is law. When those individuals within our government (collectively or singularly) break that constitution we are not obligated to obey them and I would say we are obligated to disobey them.

Part of the problem is in how that disobedience should look. My contention is that it should be on an individual basis, not on a group basis. And this would be civil disobedience.

An example is easy in the assassination issue. If you are in the military and told to murder someone by the President, under our constitution you would be breaking the law and thereby be in violation of Rom 13:7. That policy ignores due process and the rules of war.

There are many other examples which we choose to ignore or excuse for varied and many reasons. The Healthcare Act and Financial Regulations Act both violate our constitution. And to the degree we have the opportunity to disobey the provision of those acts that do break the constitution then we should. We should also participate in getting the laws enforced righteously through the ballot box and the courts where we can.

If a policeman comes in your house illegally with intent to do you harm, he does not represent the law and should not be obeyed. Disobedience will likely cost you something in that setting but it would be appropriate. He loses his authority over you when he breaks the law of the land.

Romans 12:7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Rick, good point about the Lex Rex, “The Law is King.” This come from natural law, which, according to our founders, stands above our government and under our constitution.

CMP,

I understand you’re not advocating these approaches, but we still need to be careful not to evaluate a specific action based on how many participate and the outcomes. If it’s wrong for one, it’s wrong for a thousand. And if we acquiesce to an ends-justifies-the-means thinking to combat abortion, then we are setting a very dangerous precedent.

I’m not saying much more can’t be done. And I’m not denying that the questions of where the lines are and which ones we cross are not difficult ones. But, as Christians, we need to base an evaluation of a certain course of action on solid biblical principles, not on numbers or results.

I’m sure there are believers who excuse their apathy by using Romans 13. I see many more who give vent to an impassioned crusade to take the country for God and seem to ignore passages such as Romans 13 because they don’t fit into their political ideology.

We should be having vigorous discussions about what we can do to oppose and prevent abortion. But we should also realize that we are not going to be able to completely transform the world into the kingdom of God. And the US is part of the former, not the latter.

The examples you’ve given require more discussion for each. Slavery was opposed mostly through public outcry until emancipation during the Civil War. And the Cvil War was not fought solely over the issue of slavery. Such a view is historically naive. And Martin Luther King Jr adamantly opposed the idea that violence is necessary to bring about civil rights.

CMP says “As I said before, I don’t know what the “line” is. I don’t know what civil disobedience looks like with regard to protecting the unborn. I know that with 1 million babies being killed a year, and without their voices being heard, our tolerance for this is much easier to come by. After all, they can’t protest or act with civil disobedience. It is easy to just let it go as their deaths happen in private clinics with no news agencies giving the play by play.”

The answer to this is easy. Stop paying your taxes and go to jail.

If you do this because paying for abortion is wrong then this is enough to honor God and obey Him in your civil disobedience.

If you do it to change the nation’s laws and politics then you call the newspaper and Fox News and tell them why you didn’t pay your taxes and have been arrested. Maybe this will turn into a movement that could result in the laws changing. This too would honor God and save lives.

So, who’s first?

I am not saying that we should fight to uphold a Christian worldview. My comments have specifically to do with the human rights of the unborn. While it is true that the government does not support the rights of the unborn, neither did it at one time support the rights of slaves, blacks, or women. The women issue, as far as I know, worked itself out in peaceful ways, but the other two were brought about only through disobedience to government and, sometimes, violence.

I wonder if we are not dealing with two separate issues. It seems you are saying that the unborn should be granted the same protection of constitutional rights. The parallel of blacks and women in this country draw out the need to assert rights that have been institutionally denied. So based on this constitutional provision, the solution is to advocate for equal protection and access, which is what the civil rights movement and the suffrage movement did. Therefore, the argument is not one in support of a Christian worldview but constitutional consistency, even though it certainly aligns with the Christian worldview.

But I think it confuses the issues when we make one about the other and indicate that Christians should take up arms to support life. Rather, it should be proponents of life at conception should take the arms to support life, since that would be more in alignment with the constitution. And this is because there is no constitutional provision to support a Christian worldview.

However, as Michael T and Josh pointed out the only way that will happen is to gain consensus among the power brokers of what constitutes life, in order to overturn the current institutional philosophy that denies it.

Wait a minute, Rick. So, you’re saying that if the government does something immoral with tax money that we as Christians no longer have to pay taxes?! There is no hint of this in Scripture that requires us to pay taxes. And they were paying taxes to Nero’s government!

We can’t use our civic participation to dismiss the scriptural requirement. Just because we have a vote doesn’t mean that we determine the outcome. If we are outvoted, we still have to submit ourselves to the governing authorities. We have no scriptural provision for refusing to pay taxes. As I mentioned previously, the taxes the early Christians paid went to state-supported worship of false gods. But Paul doesn’t give them an escape clause.

Rick,
Couple things,

1. Under our constitutional system of government who is given the authority by the Constitution to determine that a law is in fact a violation of the Constitution?

You say the health care bill and other bills are unconstitutional. Is that your personal opinion? Is it a expert legal opinion? Is it the opinion of the Supreme Court?

I hate the healthcare bill as much as the next. Despite this as a attorney my legal opinion is that it is not unconstitutional. However, even my opinion as someone with expert knowledge doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court will have it’s say and they are the final arbiters under our Constitution.

2. “The answer to this is easy. Stop paying your taxes and go to jail.”

The clear command in the Bible is that we are to pay our taxes. The fact that the government uses them for bad things is irrelevant. The government abuses of tax money was just as bad if not worse in Jesus’ time and we were still told to pay our taxes. Quite frankly I can’t think of a scenario where it would be Biblically permissible to refuse to pay taxes.