And yet, maybe not in the realm of taxes, but we do see disobedience to the pharisees who were backed by the government, and in Acts 12, we see Peter, who while in jail, was set free by an angel which was in direct opposition to Herod the king , who intended to kill Peter. So, in that case, it was like God's people saying to the Government; "Up your nose with a rubber hose!" But of course, it was God who did the deed for Peter. But it was obvious that God was in opposition to that government, and the believers certainly took him up on His efforts...
Submit yourselves for the LordÂ’s sake to every human authority (NIV)
From the ESV: Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution
I'd have to say there's very little doubt about the meaning of that verse.
1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.
"Also to the unjust?" :(
I have found the above troubling ever since I started reading the bible (which was about a year and a half ago). It's repeated several times in the Pauline Epistles.
It's the same with the "wives submit to your husbands" thing.
I'm thinking that I must be the worst kind of sinner, being the anti-authoritarian I've always been. The very idea of me -- or anyone -- submitting unquestionably to a boss/master/authority (and doing it with a smile) is incomprehensible. For good or bad, I am almost physically incapable of conforming to a pre-arranged set of rules with faith and without question.
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust'
Is the message to be subject to unjust masters? No - the message is to be subject to masters and respectful.
In a society where the servant/slave/master relationship is legal and a way of life, what is a person in that situation supposed to do?
Rebellion is an option. Compliance is an option.
Across the board the bible teaches clearly that a person should be considerate, respectful, loving to all. "As much as is in you". As best a person can.
So when does one not be respectful and act against another?
I don't expect the bible to tell me everything to do. It's just not going to do that.
Do you have a "master"? Are you a slave? Maybe it's not addressed to you or I. (a principle that wasn't invented in PFAL and shouldn't be ignored simply because it was).
Today I might say be respectful to employers and respect them, when they're profitable and fair and even when they're not.
Doesn't mean I have to work for them, or if they're unfair or illegal that I wouldn't act on that knowledge.
For those how need bible verses for that there are plenty that would encourage honesty, etc. as well as taking action.
Another personal observation not to you ss but just a standard rant - in America today many people act like we're free to do any d-m-d thing we want and should be celebrated for it, if not actually rewarded. That's b-s and the product of a lazy, mismanaged couple generations of swine living off the sweat and labor of those who came before them and is producing the moral squalor and chaos we see around us. The world doesn't work that way, we get what we work for, pay for and deserve. Anything above and beyond that, including health and long life is a gift to be enjoyed, the fruit of grace or labor but not to be expected as something that others should provide to us because we were born and we're going to sue someone if we don't get what we like delivered to us the way we like it.
That our society tries to help one another is an indication of our prosperity and success. We can't, we shouldn't "make" each other do anything other than get to work and get engaged.
You can be as anti-authority as you want, you've got company there. (me included).
That IMO isn't ever a problem. Authority as I see it today is highly overated. American politics? No decent person will endure the degradation known as "running for office" and those that give it a go show the scars. The swine that make a career out of living off my money can't do anything but p--s on each other while their constituents hunt for someone who at the least sounds like they give a ratz azz about doing their job.
I still recognize though that I live in a police state in the U.S and there are limits to "freedom", it's not me free to do anything - well, it is but I might not last long. I would be the best looking martyr around though, that's for sure.
The concept of slavery is interesting. When we think of it in the USA, we think of lynchings, the lash and terrible cruelty done to blacks.
We forget, that since the beginning of civilization, slavery was a way of life. You had rich, merchants and farmers. If you study slavery in Paul's day, it was not like what went on in the US. Many slaves loved their masters and did not want to leave. You were allowed to buy your freedom - you could sell yourself to the god of the temple (whichever one was worshippped) and you would belong to him. Slaves could be adopted and have more rights than the "real" children - it was different.
I was talking to someone who was in Africa, in one of the countries where slavery is a very big thing today - I forget what country now. Most of the slaves are black christian, or black muslim, owned by arab muslims. Its a regular neighborhood - you would have no clue there were hundreds of slaves behind the walls. Its a "normal" way of life. You do your tasks, do them well, have a schedule, eat, sleep, some go to school, some run the household.
It just comes down to - sometimes you have a lot in life that may not change either now or in the future. You can rage against the machine, or try and make the best of it, as Joseph in Egypt did and he ended up being the Pharoah's most trusted right hand man. God is with us whereever we are - even if we walk through the shadow of the valley of death - he is there.
In our country today, we don't have slavery as an accepted institution. I look at employment as a benign form of slavery. I please my employer, do a good job and I am paid money with which to survive. I am in a sense, their "servant." I can break the rules or leave and lose the benefits, or play by the rules and prosper. The choice is up to me. Which is more expedient?
Someone also pointed out, that even under tyrannical Roman rule, never once did Jesus advocate rebelling, overthrowing the government or the assassination of Ceasar or whoever was the ruler. Dictatorship, or rule by King had pretty much been the norm for millenia - democracy is an old concept, but never really lasted long. Someone alway wants to be "boss" - or King, or as we call the king today - a dictator. I think that may even happen here someday. People want someone to rule over them. They want someone to give them their benefit and their stuff. Humans will never bring about a perfect government or utopia on earth. In the gospels, Jesus' message was: The Kingdom of God is at hand. Of course, we know Israel rejected Him and the Kingdom, and it will be realized in Revelation, but, until then, in many countries the best advice is, live your life as best you can. If you must rebel - fine. Prepare to pay the consequences. The ruler is not a "terror" but to those who oppose him.
But, each situation is different. Who knows how each of us would react under a harsh dictatorship? I would still have to try and go by the guideline set out by Jesus, Paul and Peter.
One of the interesting features of the English Civil War period was that everybody was claiming to rule by one form or other of devine right. The U.S. constitutional ban of a state established religion was a response to the evils generated by a state religion in the ECW period.
Great discussion... Wish I had something to add.. But I don't.. Just enjoying the dialogue!
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
I still recognize though that I live in a police state in the U.S and there are limits to "freedom", it's not me free to do anything
Do you really think we live in a "police state" in the U.S., or is that a typo? I don't think we've quite hit that stage yet. Sure we have some major problems, but a "police state" is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think?
Don't worry, if you're not planning to get married you aren't expected to get engaged.
"Make" - meaning citizenship has requirements and opportunities. A citizen engaged in the process of governance has a shot at fulfilling the original premise, "by the people, for the people".
Anyone that doesn't can still be a citizen and enjoy or complain or remain silent and unaccounted for. It's our choice."Minimum expecation" might be better to describe it but no, no one's going to make you or anyone else get involved. It would be UnAmerican.
... the "police" state.
We have laws, laws we obey and if we do, we expect to live freely and unhindered.
Scenario - cop stops you on the road and pulls you over, asks for identification. You ask why? He says, please, I'd like to see your identification, reg, insurance papers, you were weaving a little back there, sir.
You say Huh? No, you weren't.
Actually you're being pulled over because it's after 1:00 pm, bars close at 2-ish or so and you're on a road where police monitor traffic closely - weave or no weave.
You are required to provide the identifcation as requested, or you can be cited and even taken into custody if they feel your behavior or lack of it warrants it.
Similar scenario - "probable cause" - you look like someone else or are in the wrong place wrong time or simply are the object of a policeman's observation. You are required by law to obey the instructions of the policeman.
This applies in many situations if you live in a city or near one. I live in a relatively rural area near a mid-sized town. Over the years I've been told of many isntances, and have experienced it myself.
Overall law enforcement is amp'd up by risk and crime, to the point that it makes these situations extremely difficult to deal with for them - the net result however is the same.
True, the law is not be applied equally to all citizens in all places. That is a far cry from a police state, however. We have the right of redress in this country. True, it may fall on deaf ears at certain times. But in the U.S., the fact you can even challenge a government official is one of the things that keeps us from being a police state. I'm sure the same is true in other nations as well, such as Great Britain and Canada.
We're innocent until proven guilty and we have a right to be judged by a jury of our peers. In a police state you're guilty because the police say you're guilty, no evidence is required, nothing has to be proven. If the government wants to search your property, they must first obtain a search warrant. Police states don't bother. In a police state, the military runs everything. In the U.S., the military is under the control of civilian authorities. I could go on but I think you catch my drift.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't inequities or even discrimination in our system. In reality, to take on the U.S. government one has to be able to afford a good attorney, I realize that. But the U.S. a police state? I don't think so. The reason I'm giving you some pushback here is because there are people who live in these types of police states. I think they might laugh at the thought of us being such a system. They might even say that we don't even know what a police state.
That's very true Broken Arrow and I agree completely. We are not a police state by definition, nor do I subscribe to or believe that we are now or have been in the recent past.
I'm not a "conspiracy" theorist and am not to the extreme right/conservative view in making the statement I did. (just to clarify).
But - we are far closer than we, we being the average law abiding citizen, think we are IMO. And it is similar to what Romans 13 describes although in a very different setting.
"The Rule of Law" - a simple disposition of what it is and how it relates in the U.S. is on wikipedia. To the average person "law" doesn't pose a threat, one might say. Law sets forth an order for the common good. Those who live reasonably - again, one might say - live by the "law" have no conflicts. Yet, we do see many instances where laws are broken and there is cause - wikipedia lightly covers "conflict with natural law" on that topic.
On average "most" people don't encounter these conflicts - we think. However we actually do much more than we probably recognize and in those instances where there is no harm done, no foul is called and no law is enforced. Order on an intimate scale continues without significant disruption and life goes on.
(A simple example is the laws on vehicle speed - posted speed limits always apply, yet are are required by law (and logically) to not drive at a speed that would be unsafe be it slow or fast. Therefore I can be cited for driving over a speed limit, even where there's no apparent or immediate possibility of harm being done. However if I get where I'm going and don't encounter law enforcement - no ticket. "Traffic" law is constantly broken in the interests of people getting where they're going - but the laws are piling up - seat belt laws, cell phone laws - all with good cause but there are more and more opportunities where people can find themselves at odds with the law and at that point of encounter the clock starts....)
Romans describes that authorities aren't a threat to those who don't break the law, more or less is how I understand it.
When and where a person finds themselves at conflict with the authority as it's been set forth in law, the law is enforced by the authorities that enforce it.
We are always one thin slice away from that reality. Once a person finds themselves in that position they had indeed better find a good lawyer as the justice system in our country is so clogged it doesn't offer much by way of public defense to the person who would rely solely on it - those tax paying citizens who for whatever reasons may find themselves engulfed in the process and in need.
Where this becomes important is that in any instance where there is a perceived real threat requiring immediate action by law enforcement all citizens are required and expected to comply. We should - however that very scenario could put the average person in harms way if they don't completely understand that and even if they do, it can be difficult to fine one's way through a chaotic situation.
I see Romans instruction much the way we've discussed it here - sunesis put it "keep your head down" or something similar. That's what it amounts to on a practical level I believe - don't be out and about at times of high risk, late at night, in places or circumstance where problems can arise, as much as possible. Don't break laws or challenge authority simply because you can. Say "yes sir" and "here it is ma'am" when and if confronted, assume a certain level of doubt and accusation comes with the territory if you find yourself in it and don't challenge authority or rebel against enforcement even if you are not in the wrong - if you do, you may end up "on the wrong side of the law" and not even know it.
I, likewise, agree with what you said. With respect to your belief that we are closer to a police state than most think, I would point at the Patriot Act. I'm not making a statement (at least here) about whether it's a good law. My concern is that people will begin to give up their rights as citizens in exchange for safety. I also wonder if we in the U.S. have passed the point of being able to handle a democratic form of government. Have we as a nation become too selfish and too self-focused? Rights have been taken to an extreme. The pornography industry, for example, hides behind the First Amendment. We have hate groups protesting private funerals of fallen service men and women. They hide behind the First Amendment. Everyone knows this practice is awful. Then, of course, we sue at the drop of a hat. Like the lady a while back who spilled coffee in her lap at a drive-thru and then sued the restaurant. She said they didn't warn her the coffee was so hot...come on!
In order to live out this freedom we have, people need to act responsibly because there is no way a law can't be written where there isn't some loophole. You know how it is said that people get the government they deserve? Well.....?
...We're innocent until proven guilty and we have a right to be judged by a jury of our peers. In a police state you're guilty because the police say you're guilty, no evidence is required, nothing has to be proven. If the government wants to search your property, they must first obtain a search warrant. Police states don't bother. In a police state, the military runs everything. In the U.S., the military is under the control of civilian authorities. I could go on but I think you catch my drift...
Uh I hate to burst your bubble but that's not true anymore. Not since the Patriot Act was signed into law. Now if the Federal Government suspects you are a terrorist, they have the right to arrest you and detain you without charges ...indefinitely. In case you all had forgotten, there are hundreds of detainees in Gitmo right now who have never been charged and are not allowed to see the evidence against them. As far as we know, all of those detainees are foreign nationals, but that doesn't prevent the CIA from doing the same thing to any citizen they suspect of being a terrorist.
Technically, we do live in a police state. It's just a relatively benign police state. Hopefully it will stay that way. But there are no guarantees.
Which brings us back to the original topic. This is one of those passages that drove me away from the Fundamentalist Camp. I can't accept the notion that "the powers that be are ordained of God" being true of human governments. The USSR, a tyrannical government that adopted and taught atheism as the state doctrine and persecuted Christians was ordained of God?
The Taliban and the Iranian Clerics, even more opressive regimes that execute people who preach the gospel of Christ were ordained by God?
Sorry, I don't buy that. I can accept the idea that we shouldn't go looking for trouble or get embroiled in politics, but declaring that all governments on earth have a divine mandate takes it into the category of incredulity for me.
That's like saying we could speak in the historical context of where we are.
Seems funny to me, between us....maybe there is something to that, don't know.
I have no idea what this means, could you rephrase maybe?
The Roman Empire was tolerant of different religions providing they were not seen as a threat to the State so Paul was seeking to minimise those perceptions by telling Christians to comply in matters civil. This verse has since been used to justify the existence and behaviour of all kinds of regimes since.
What I was saying in that phrase you don't understand is that how trustworthy would be the judgement of any divine being be who decreed that such delightful people as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe etc etc should be in the positions of power that they were or are considering what they did with that power if that verse were literally true about being "ordained of God."
Recommended Posts
ClayJay
And yet, maybe not in the realm of taxes, but we do see disobedience to the pharisees who were backed by the government, and in Acts 12, we see Peter, who while in jail, was set free by an angel which was in direct opposition to Herod the king , who intended to kill Peter. So, in that case, it was like God's people saying to the Government; "Up your nose with a rubber hose!" But of course, it was God who did the deed for Peter. But it was obvious that God was in opposition to that government, and the believers certainly took him up on His efforts...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Drilling down, so to speak...
1 Peter 2:13
Submit yourselves for the LordÂ’s sake to every human authority (NIV)
From the ESV: Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution
I'd have to say there's very little doubt about the meaning of that verse.
1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.
"Also to the unjust?" :(
I have found the above troubling ever since I started reading the bible (which was about a year and a half ago). It's repeated several times in the Pauline Epistles.
It's the same with the "wives submit to your husbands" thing.
I'm thinking that I must be the worst kind of sinner, being the anti-authoritarian I've always been. The very idea of me -- or anyone -- submitting unquestionably to a boss/master/authority (and doing it with a smile) is incomprehensible. For good or bad, I am almost physically incapable of conforming to a pre-arranged set of rules with faith and without question.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Good examples.
"...the unjust..."
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust'
Is the message to be subject to unjust masters? No - the message is to be subject to masters and respectful.
In a society where the servant/slave/master relationship is legal and a way of life, what is a person in that situation supposed to do?
Rebellion is an option. Compliance is an option.
Across the board the bible teaches clearly that a person should be considerate, respectful, loving to all. "As much as is in you". As best a person can.
So when does one not be respectful and act against another?
I don't expect the bible to tell me everything to do. It's just not going to do that.
Do you have a "master"? Are you a slave? Maybe it's not addressed to you or I. (a principle that wasn't invented in PFAL and shouldn't be ignored simply because it was).
Today I might say be respectful to employers and respect them, when they're profitable and fair and even when they're not.
Doesn't mean I have to work for them, or if they're unfair or illegal that I wouldn't act on that knowledge.
For those how need bible verses for that there are plenty that would encourage honesty, etc. as well as taking action.
Another personal observation not to you ss but just a standard rant - in America today many people act like we're free to do any d-m-d thing we want and should be celebrated for it, if not actually rewarded. That's b-s and the product of a lazy, mismanaged couple generations of swine living off the sweat and labor of those who came before them and is producing the moral squalor and chaos we see around us. The world doesn't work that way, we get what we work for, pay for and deserve. Anything above and beyond that, including health and long life is a gift to be enjoyed, the fruit of grace or labor but not to be expected as something that others should provide to us because we were born and we're going to sue someone if we don't get what we like delivered to us the way we like it.
That our society tries to help one another is an indication of our prosperity and success. We can't, we shouldn't "make" each other do anything other than get to work and get engaged.
You can be as anti-authority as you want, you've got company there. (me included).
That IMO isn't ever a problem. Authority as I see it today is highly overated. American politics? No decent person will endure the degradation known as "running for office" and those that give it a go show the scars. The swine that make a career out of living off my money can't do anything but p--s on each other while their constituents hunt for someone who at the least sounds like they give a ratz azz about doing their job.
I still recognize though that I live in a police state in the U.S and there are limits to "freedom", it's not me free to do anything - well, it is but I might not last long.
I would be the best looking martyr around though, that's for sure. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
The concept of slavery is interesting. When we think of it in the USA, we think of lynchings, the lash and terrible cruelty done to blacks.
We forget, that since the beginning of civilization, slavery was a way of life. You had rich, merchants and farmers. If you study slavery in Paul's day, it was not like what went on in the US. Many slaves loved their masters and did not want to leave. You were allowed to buy your freedom - you could sell yourself to the god of the temple (whichever one was worshippped) and you would belong to him. Slaves could be adopted and have more rights than the "real" children - it was different.
I was talking to someone who was in Africa, in one of the countries where slavery is a very big thing today - I forget what country now. Most of the slaves are black christian, or black muslim, owned by arab muslims. Its a regular neighborhood - you would have no clue there were hundreds of slaves behind the walls. Its a "normal" way of life. You do your tasks, do them well, have a schedule, eat, sleep, some go to school, some run the household.
It just comes down to - sometimes you have a lot in life that may not change either now or in the future. You can rage against the machine, or try and make the best of it, as Joseph in Egypt did and he ended up being the Pharoah's most trusted right hand man. God is with us whereever we are - even if we walk through the shadow of the valley of death - he is there.
In our country today, we don't have slavery as an accepted institution. I look at employment as a benign form of slavery. I please my employer, do a good job and I am paid money with which to survive. I am in a sense, their "servant." I can break the rules or leave and lose the benefits, or play by the rules and prosper. The choice is up to me. Which is more expedient?
Someone also pointed out, that even under tyrannical Roman rule, never once did Jesus advocate rebelling, overthrowing the government or the assassination of Ceasar or whoever was the ruler. Dictatorship, or rule by King had pretty much been the norm for millenia - democracy is an old concept, but never really lasted long. Someone alway wants to be "boss" - or King, or as we call the king today - a dictator. I think that may even happen here someday. People want someone to rule over them. They want someone to give them their benefit and their stuff. Humans will never bring about a perfect government or utopia on earth. In the gospels, Jesus' message was: The Kingdom of God is at hand. Of course, we know Israel rejected Him and the Kingdom, and it will be realized in Revelation, but, until then, in many countries the best advice is, live your life as best you can. If you must rebel - fine. Prepare to pay the consequences. The ruler is not a "terror" but to those who oppose him.
But, each situation is different. Who knows how each of us would react under a harsh dictatorship? I would still have to try and go by the guideline set out by Jesus, Paul and Peter.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
One of the interesting features of the English Civil War period was that everybody was claiming to rule by one form or other of devine right. The U.S. constitutional ban of a state established religion was a response to the evils generated by a state religion in the ECW period.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
(bold addition added by me)
I hope no one missed this most excellent insight!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Huh? We should "make" each other get engaged? Whaddaya mean?
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Do you really think we live in a "police state" in the U.S., or is that a typo? I don't think we've quite hit that stage yet. Sure we have some major problems, but a "police state" is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Don't worry, if you're not planning to get married you aren't expected to get engaged.
"Make" - meaning citizenship has requirements and opportunities. A citizen engaged in the process of governance has a shot at fulfilling the original premise, "by the people, for the people".
Anyone that doesn't can still be a citizen and enjoy or complain or remain silent and unaccounted for. It's our choice."Minimum expecation" might be better to describe it but no, no one's going to make you or anyone else get involved. It would be UnAmerican.
... the "police" state.
We have laws, laws we obey and if we do, we expect to live freely and unhindered.
Scenario - cop stops you on the road and pulls you over, asks for identification. You ask why? He says, please, I'd like to see your identification, reg, insurance papers, you were weaving a little back there, sir.
You say Huh? No, you weren't.
Actually you're being pulled over because it's after 1:00 pm, bars close at 2-ish or so and you're on a road where police monitor traffic closely - weave or no weave.
You are required to provide the identifcation as requested, or you can be cited and even taken into custody if they feel your behavior or lack of it warrants it.
Similar scenario - "probable cause" - you look like someone else or are in the wrong place wrong time or simply are the object of a policeman's observation. You are required by law to obey the instructions of the policeman.
This applies in many situations if you live in a city or near one. I live in a relatively rural area near a mid-sized town. Over the years I've been told of many isntances, and have experienced it myself.
Overall law enforcement is amp'd up by risk and crime, to the point that it makes these situations extremely difficult to deal with for them - the net result however is the same.
We have laws, law enforcement - enforces
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
True, the law is not be applied equally to all citizens in all places. That is a far cry from a police state, however. We have the right of redress in this country. True, it may fall on deaf ears at certain times. But in the U.S., the fact you can even challenge a government official is one of the things that keeps us from being a police state. I'm sure the same is true in other nations as well, such as Great Britain and Canada.
We're innocent until proven guilty and we have a right to be judged by a jury of our peers. In a police state you're guilty because the police say you're guilty, no evidence is required, nothing has to be proven. If the government wants to search your property, they must first obtain a search warrant. Police states don't bother. In a police state, the military runs everything. In the U.S., the military is under the control of civilian authorities. I could go on but I think you catch my drift.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't inequities or even discrimination in our system. In reality, to take on the U.S. government one has to be able to afford a good attorney, I realize that. But the U.S. a police state? I don't think so. The reason I'm giving you some pushback here is because there are people who live in these types of police states. I think they might laugh at the thought of us being such a system. They might even say that we don't even know what a police state.
Anyway, my thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That's very true Broken Arrow and I agree completely. We are not a police state by definition, nor do I subscribe to or believe that we are now or have been in the recent past.
I'm not a "conspiracy" theorist and am not to the extreme right/conservative view in making the statement I did. (just to clarify).
But - we are far closer than we, we being the average law abiding citizen, think we are IMO. And it is similar to what Romans 13 describes although in a very different setting.
"The Rule of Law" - a simple disposition of what it is and how it relates in the U.S. is on wikipedia. To the average person "law" doesn't pose a threat, one might say. Law sets forth an order for the common good. Those who live reasonably - again, one might say - live by the "law" have no conflicts. Yet, we do see many instances where laws are broken and there is cause - wikipedia lightly covers "conflict with natural law" on that topic.
On average "most" people don't encounter these conflicts - we think. However we actually do much more than we probably recognize and in those instances where there is no harm done, no foul is called and no law is enforced. Order on an intimate scale continues without significant disruption and life goes on.
(A simple example is the laws on vehicle speed - posted speed limits always apply, yet are are required by law (and logically) to not drive at a speed that would be unsafe be it slow or fast. Therefore I can be cited for driving over a speed limit, even where there's no apparent or immediate possibility of harm being done. However if I get where I'm going and don't encounter law enforcement - no ticket. "Traffic" law is constantly broken in the interests of people getting where they're going - but the laws are piling up - seat belt laws, cell phone laws - all with good cause but there are more and more opportunities where people can find themselves at odds with the law and at that point of encounter the clock starts....)
Romans describes that authorities aren't a threat to those who don't break the law, more or less is how I understand it.
When and where a person finds themselves at conflict with the authority as it's been set forth in law, the law is enforced by the authorities that enforce it.
We are always one thin slice away from that reality. Once a person finds themselves in that position they had indeed better find a good lawyer as the justice system in our country is so clogged it doesn't offer much by way of public defense to the person who would rely solely on it - those tax paying citizens who for whatever reasons may find themselves engulfed in the process and in need.
Where this becomes important is that in any instance where there is a perceived real threat requiring immediate action by law enforcement all citizens are required and expected to comply. We should - however that very scenario could put the average person in harms way if they don't completely understand that and even if they do, it can be difficult to fine one's way through a chaotic situation.
I see Romans instruction much the way we've discussed it here - sunesis put it "keep your head down" or something similar. That's what it amounts to on a practical level I believe - don't be out and about at times of high risk, late at night, in places or circumstance where problems can arise, as much as possible. Don't break laws or challenge authority simply because you can. Say "yes sir" and "here it is ma'am" when and if confronted, assume a certain level of doubt and accusation comes with the territory if you find yourself in it and don't challenge authority or rebel against enforcement even if you are not in the wrong - if you do, you may end up "on the wrong side of the law" and not even know it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I, likewise, agree with what you said. With respect to your belief that we are closer to a police state than most think, I would point at the Patriot Act. I'm not making a statement (at least here) about whether it's a good law. My concern is that people will begin to give up their rights as citizens in exchange for safety. I also wonder if we in the U.S. have passed the point of being able to handle a democratic form of government. Have we as a nation become too selfish and too self-focused? Rights have been taken to an extreme. The pornography industry, for example, hides behind the First Amendment. We have hate groups protesting private funerals of fallen service men and women. They hide behind the First Amendment. Everyone knows this practice is awful. Then, of course, we sue at the drop of a hat. Like the lady a while back who spilled coffee in her lap at a drive-thru and then sued the restaurant. She said they didn't warn her the coffee was so hot...come on!
In order to live out this freedom we have, people need to act responsibly because there is no way a law can't be written where there isn't some loophole. You know how it is said that people get the government they deserve? Well.....?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I think it's about how to conduct ourselves more then third party control.
Some translations call the 'authorities' an 'it'.
Which leads me to think it's about what has always been around anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Uh I hate to burst your bubble but that's not true anymore. Not since the Patriot Act was signed into law. Now if the Federal Government suspects you are a terrorist, they have the right to arrest you and detain you without charges ...indefinitely. In case you all had forgotten, there are hundreds of detainees in Gitmo right now who have never been charged and are not allowed to see the evidence against them. As far as we know, all of those detainees are foreign nationals, but that doesn't prevent the CIA from doing the same thing to any citizen they suspect of being a terrorist.
Technically, we do live in a police state. It's just a relatively benign police state. Hopefully it will stay that way. But there are no guarantees.
Which brings us back to the original topic. This is one of those passages that drove me away from the Fundamentalist Camp. I can't accept the notion that "the powers that be are ordained of God" being true of human governments. The USSR, a tyrannical government that adopted and taught atheism as the state doctrine and persecuted Christians was ordained of God?
The Taliban and the Iranian Clerics, even more opressive regimes that execute people who preach the gospel of Christ were ordained by God?
Sorry, I don't buy that. I can accept the idea that we shouldn't go looking for trouble or get embroiled in politics, but declaring that all governments on earth have a divine mandate takes it into the category of incredulity for me.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
The more I think of that verse the more I think it is simply Paul speaking for himself in the the historical context in which he was.
Trying to make the new faith more acceptable to the authorities as not being a threat to them.
if any god was to actually select some of the powers that be one would have to seriously question his/her/its judgement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Great point, Trefor. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I can't quite make out your point Trefor.
That's like saying we could speak in the historical context of where we are.
Seems funny to me, between us....maybe there is something to that, don't know.
I have no idea what this means, could you rephrase maybe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
The Roman Empire was tolerant of different religions providing they were not seen as a threat to the State so Paul was seeking to minimise those perceptions by telling Christians to comply in matters civil. This verse has since been used to justify the existence and behaviour of all kinds of regimes since.
What I was saying in that phrase you don't understand is that how trustworthy would be the judgement of any divine being be who decreed that such delightful people as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe etc etc should be in the positions of power that they were or are considering what they did with that power if that verse were literally true about being "ordained of God."
Hope that makes it clearer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
that helps a bit...thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.