One of the central concepts of Christianity has been that no matter what governments or 'man's authority' says about certain issues, God is to be obeyed. This sometimes means blatant, outright disobedience to the dictates of governments.
Americans often forget that central aspect of the Christian life. We have had it so easy in a country that was founded on the principle of human freedom. So easy, in fact, that many modern Christians erroneously assume that it is always wrong to refuse to follow the law. They would equate man's law with God's.
But what if man's law is in direct opposition to God's law? What if Christians are forced to engage in disobedience to God in order to 'obey the law?'
In every instance, historically, Biblically, theologically, and spiritually, the Christian faith has taught that when man's laws interfere with Gods,' it is God who must be obeyed, not man.
I can easily imagine a time in the not-to-distant future*, when Christians (those who have accepted & obeyed Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and not just pew-sitters) will have to choose one or the other.
Go read the whole thing by my friend Anthony Martin (the guy who publishes the Second Amendment Round-up) and think about what you might do.
*Or, as Jesus said, "The time is coming, and now is, when ..."
5 comments:
You mean like situations like where Catholics are getting pushed into assisting in abortions? Yeah boy. It's not the not-to-distant future. It's right now.
It IS now... Socialism and PCism are driving a wedge between Christians and everyone else in the USA.
I'm not a biblical scholar but I recall something along the lines of "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
I'm sure this can be argued as to meaning, but the Protestant faith seems to have a tendency to preach variations in the meanings of "God's Word". I can't speak for the Catholics.
If laws are only to be obeyed if one's interpretation leads one to believe God also agrees, then we may as well throw out the concept of Rule of Law - flawed as that may be right now.
I believe - and accept - the Declaration and Constitution are based on Christian morality...and decry the tendency to move away from that - but I also believe they are not intended to be superseded by Christian - Catholic or Protestant - beliefs.
What would keep me from deciding that my Christian words tell me God says you should share your worldly goods with me and I have a right to come and take what I need - or want? Or the words "Thou shalt not kill" should be applied even to the point of self-defense? Or many other "what-if" scenarios?
The concept of obeying a "Higher Law" is the same argument the Muslims use: "Allah's Will". Or is it: "Thy will be done"?
Sharia Law places Allah above the State (and is also subject to different interpretations). I thought one of the reasons we're at war is to prevent that attitude from taking over America.
I feel too many arguments between the religions are only different in the choice of word used for whatever one wishes to call the supreme entity. "God" turns into a 3-letter word for "Allah"; "Allah" is a 5-letter word for "God" - the arguments seem the same: "My xxx over all"
PH: I'm ambiguous on the abortion issue...being a male, I'm not in the position to argue for or against a woman's deepest feelings. I tend to think it's wrong - unnecessary late term is reprehensible - but I believe this is a deeply personal matter I leave to the woman and her God
I don't disagree that alternatives should be found - my only thought is the government has no business making that decision. I know of nothing - in my ignorance - that forces anyone to receive an abortion, nor do I believe any doctor or institution should be forced to provide one.
If I were a woman seeking an abortion, why should I expect a Catholic hospital to provide one? And what right would/should I have in bringing suit to force such an event? And what business does the Federal government have in forcing said hospital to provide such a service?
Oh, sorry...up on someone else's soapbox again.
I suppose this will bring about disagreement from both of you but if I didn't hold both your opinions in high regard, I probably wouldn't fill your comments with my blathers. I think of it as more a conversation with people far away.
And like Larry says, if we all agreed all the time, one of us is superfluous...
Q
Q - thank you for that very thoughtful and considered comment. I'll do my best to reply.
Jesus' "Render unto Caesar" response was a direct reply to a question about whether His followers should pay taxes to the Roman government.
What Rev. Martin and I are referring to is changes in governmental regulations that mandate certain behaviors, in an attempt to force compliance among those who sincerely find that compliance to be not only morally abhorrent, but actually in direct conflict with God's commands to His children.
Abortion is legal in the U.S., for example. I don't agree with that, but the Roe v. Wade decision doesn't force me to perform or participate in the procedure.
For the law to mandate that a procedure which (to continue the example) a minister or congregation find conflicts with Scripture, then that minister/congregation/denomination must then choose to either set aside what they've sincerely believed, or to deliberately disobey the law - and, if need be, suffer the consequences.
If governmental laws or regulations mandate that a Catholic hospital MUST perform abortions, then the hospital administrators must make a choice between civil obedience or the opposite.
Ultimately, each believer much obey the dictates of his own conscience, based on his understanding of God's Word.
And for the record, the difference between what I believe and Shari'a law is, I'm not telling you to submit or be beheaded.
Hi Rev:
Yep, I understand the reference to taxes...
While I'm uneasy with either side of the issue of abortion, I fully agree with you regards the government interference. It's one thing to declare something "legal" (or as I prefer, not illegal); it's quite another to mandate the activity (then it's not that abortion is legal - it's that not performing an abortion is illegal - an abomination...[Obamanation?])
Abortion is a hot-button topic, but I find the same situation in many other less-inflammatory issues. Smoking is one of my favorites - and it works in reverse (I'm not a smoker). Smoking is "legal"...except when businesses are forced to forbid it (let the customers - or loss of customers - choose). I know of places in Denver where it is an offense to smoke in your own home. So I can be fined for practicing a legal activity on and inside my own residence.
Yes, I realize you're not forcing the convert or die choice...but I do know some self-proclaimed (so-called) Christians that do have that attitude. "Jesus or else"
Makes me very hesitant about letting the camel's nose into the tent.
Anyway, you're one of my top blog reads (HOTR...you know?)...and I still consider you as close to a preacher as I have. (Raised Scots-Irish hillbilly Protestant)
Please keep it up...when and as the mood strikes
Thanks
Q
Post a Comment