Romans 13: 1-7

[DamieQue™]

Question below

Romans 13

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Question: Do you feel this can be taken literally? A few short years ago, many on the religious right suggested that this was the reason that people shouldn't protest Bush. Somehow I doubt if they would apply the same standard to Obama (but I'm sure some on the religious left might). So the question is - can this verse ever be used to justify modern politics in your opinion? Why or why not?

[LejaOMG]

Yes, I think it can be taken literally. And I think it's an excellent argument for political neutrality. At the time this was written, there was government corruption and apostasy as well. God allows earthly "kings" to exist, and he sometimes uses them to achieve his will in certain ways (ask me how/when/why, if you care). I think the essence of this passage is that it is not for us, servants of the true God and rightful King, to attempt to unseat, protest against or show unnecessary dishonor to human rulers. God has promised that he will judge them according to their misdeeds. This scripture supports the idea that a true Christian with a well-trained conscience is peaceful and submits to authority (all forms of authority which God permits) so long as it does not interfere with his/her service to God.

[Highly Favored]

Nov 4, 2009 11:38:24 GMT -5 LejaOMG said:

Yes, I think it can be taken literally. And I think it's an excellent argument for political neutrality. At the time this was written, there was government corruption and apostasy as well. God allows earthly "kings" to exist, and he sometimes uses them to achieve his will in certain ways (ask me how/when/why, if you care). I think the essence of this passage is that it is not for us, servants of the true God and rightful King, to attempt to unseat, protest against or show unnecessary dishonor to human rulers. God has promised that he will judge them according to their misdeeds. This scripture supports the idea that a true Christian with a well-trained conscience is peaceful and submits to authority (all forms of authority which God permits) so long as it does not interfere with his/her service to God.

I agree. Well stated.

Exhalt!

[DamieQue™]

Nov 4, 2009 11:38:24 GMT -5 LejaOMG said:

Yes, I think it can be taken literally. And I think it's an excellent argument for political neutrality. At the time this was written, there was government corruption and apostasy as well. God allows earthly "kings" to exist, and he sometimes uses them to achieve his will in certain ways (ask me how/when/why, if you care). I think the essence of this passage is that it is not for us, servants of the true God and rightful King, to attempt to unseat, protest against or show unnecessary dishonor to human rulers. God has promised that he will judge them according to their misdeeds. This scripture supports the idea that a true Christian with a well-trained conscience is peaceful and submits to authority (all forms of authority which God permits) so long as it does not interfere with his/her service to God.

Does it matter if the authority is not legitimate? With the approach above, aren't you bound to attribute a rigged election as an extension of "God's will" and thus required to submit to? And if a group of people overthrew that candidate that won by virtue of a rigged election - wouldn't you be apt to attribute that to "God's Will"? Also isn't every election an attempt to unseat authority?

[LejaOMG]

Yes and yes. Which...is why I (and others of like mind and conscience) choose not to participate in elections.

[DamieQue™]

You missed a few questions there (that's been happening with increasing frequency lately... *pauses to contemplate*)

Elections are not the only way to unseat/challenge/neutralize authority. Do you also abstain from them all? Do you participate in influence groups (PACs, think tanks, lobbies, advocacy groups)?

Do you avoid supporting policies that are inconsistent with the policy endorsed/favored by the authority?

[LejaOMG]

I'm not so good with the whole "abstinence" concept, so to best answer your question: yes, I believe that it is best to refrain from participation in all measures designed to unseat/challenge/neutralize established governments. Whatever groups I participate in, I try to look at the purpose of the group and the purpose of my involvement therein. If the general reason for my involvement would seem to be for a political purpose (i.e. promoting a particular party or advancing a particular agenda) I decline.

My conscience is not bothered by lobbying and advocacy activity so long as the objective is morally satisfactory to me (not tobacco, firearms, gay marriage, ethnic cleansing, legalizing marijuana, etc.)

I avoid supporting policies in general. I abide by the laws, and while in my mind I may hold an opinion about, say, healthcare reform, I don't generally do anything that would appear to be an endorsement of a particular policy (such as testify at congressional hearings, participate in community mobilization efforts, etc.)

[nsync]

For so long I felt the way Leja expressed here, which is why I am so behind in my polical knowlegde.

I do believe we should try to support our leaders as best as possible. However, once before, God directly appointed leadership. This is not the case these day.
We the people elect...or overturn. We the people let our worldly lust get in the way of righteous reigning.

I say we the people have the right to fight for what is important to us. Also, to ensure that the leadership that represents our nation align with the principles and laws of our nation.

[perroloco]

As a contextual reader and diviner of Biblical philosophy, I believe that the passage was spoken "literally" to the group in which it was written. Paul was addressing a specific question asked by that church community. At the time, the Roman Christians were under serious duress by the pagan Romans and scapegoated by them for the conditions that existed at the time. The church leaders in Rome were asking Paul if it was okay for them to take up direct action to those who were threatening them at the time. Paul answred them that it was better to submit to Roman authority that to inflame retribution or retaliation amongst those that were seeking the slightest provacation to take punitive action against you. This eventually came to pass as the Nero blamed the Christians for the fire that destroyed much of Rome and thus suffered the retribution of Romes citizenry. However, as Paul stated, God will deal with the unrighteous rulers, and thus, Nero soon suffered a horrible assassination shortly thereafter.

I question no ones belief in what they read as Leja has expressed, but I take exception to using this verse or any Christian position to not impact your life politically. Jesus was the ultimate political entity and community organizer. He challenged authority and political policy and provided the basis for social welfare systems. He directly challenged the politics of the Sadducees and the hypocracies of the Pharisees so that he could empower the masses. There were no voting machines, but he won people over and was elected by their hearts. Was not his triumphant entryinto jerusalem to cries of "Hosanna" a referendum? To abdicate our duties/powers as citizens is to abdicate the authority and power that Jesus himself, bequeathed to us.

Roo to da Good Bruhz.

[DamieQue™]

This was an interesting thread, maybe even some application for today's political environment.