|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Christian Patriotism.
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Christian Patriotism.Here are the core notes that I will use to frame the discussion. Rom. 13:1-7 {Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.} The whole chapter continues in this idea. Pay your taxes and charges; show respect to those over you. But what does this passage NOT say? The clue is in the verses that immediately follow:- Rom. 13:8-10 {Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.} Our paying of taxes, our respect for authority, etc, are based in love for our neighbours. A society that falls into anarchy is not good for anyone, not even the crime bosses who can be assassinated by competitors; and no good at all for the vulnerable. Even a bad government is better than no government at all. But that doesn’t mean that everything the government orders must be obeyed. ‘Obey’ is a word that Paul does NOT use in this chapter. Why not? What does the first part NOT say, but is the core of the second part? Acts 5:25-29 {Someone came and told them, “The men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people.” Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but without violence, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”} Paul was aware of how Peter and the others acted towards authority after Pentecost. Note two important points in this passage. First, the guards brought the disciples in, but WITHOUT VIOLENCE. Peter and the others did not resist, or it could have caused a riot. They disobeyed the authorities, but without violence. This is the pattern the Early Church adopted most times. During persecution they would flee, or hide, or conceal books, or refuse to become informants; but there is no record that they put up armed resistance. The one recorded exception is Peter in Gethsemane, when he cut off a slave’s ear; but Jesus immediately told him to stop fighting. Was this warning from Jesus recorded in the Gospel precisely to ensure that disciples would take note of it? “A Bible in one hand and a gun in the other” is exactly what Jesus ordered Peter NOT to do! So how far should a Christian be ‘Patriotic’, and on what basis? Hebrews has a bit to say about ‘Patriots’ and our duties as citizens. Heb. 11:9,10,15,16 {By faith Abraham sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.} As the writer says shortly after this, Heb. 13:14 {For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come.} That city which is to come, the New Jerusalem, is the focus of our deepest patriotism, So what are we to do here, where we are more like trusted visitors rather than core citizens. Do we have any duty to the community that provides the context for our lives, our prosperity and our work? Surely we are to be more than parasites? The first part of the answer is already given, in the fifth slide we saw. Rom. 13:8-10 {Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.} But that is more about personal interactions, not public duty. So now let’s look at the advice given to the Jews in Exile in Babylon. They were just like we are; currently ‘in exile’ from our true home city:- Jer. 29:4-7 {This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”} We have a duty to the community in which we find ourselves. A duty to help it prosper, to improve it, to bring peace and joy to it. Our duties is like an onion-skin. Our first patriotism is to the Kingdom of God, to bring the peace and prosperity of that Kingdom to as many as we can. After that, our closest duty is to our community; outside that we have a duty to the country that gives us a stable context. But that doesn’t stop at national boundaries! Unlike jingoistic nationalism, we have an even wider duty to the community of all people on the planet; to prosper the Earth, to care for it and all its people, to work for peace and justice on it, just as we work for peace and justice in our nearest neighbourhood. But all these duties come under the one over-arching Patriotism we owe to the Kingdom Of God, and to bring it into our earthly communities in so far as we can. This is the true Patriotism we should all support. |
||
|
I think there's scope for debating how the principles apply in a democracy, where in theory the ruled are collectively also the rulers. Jesus most likely isn't coming back to rule as a democratic constitutional monarch. |
||
|
Colin 13:12 In one sense, a strict Calvinist would say that everything has been decreed by God, even the number of hairs on your head. (God must have got lazy with me!) In another sense, someone of more Arminian persuasion would emphasise that God has given us free will. I would suggest that the concept of 'government' as such has been hard-wired into humans as a social species, therefore the idea of 'government' is genuinely God-given; but individuals with authority have no grounds for claiming that how they USE that authority is God-approved. Your point about a democracy being (ideally) a form of collective self-government is also valid. I recall in my politically-active days meeting a person who said it was against her religion to vote, lest she be partly responsible for 'fallen human government'. (I think she was Jehovah's Witness or something similar). I suggested to her that she was herself part of that 'fallen human government' simply by being eligible to vote. Was she going to appoint honest stewards to manage her administration, or allow dishonest stewards to be appointed by others? She had a duty before God to establish righteousness as much as she could, rather than abdicate that responsibility to less honest people. This was all said in good spirit, so no offence was given or taken. I conceded that she needs to be convinced in her own mind what she should do, because that which does not come of faith is sin. <Jesus most likely isn't coming back to rule as a democratic constitutional monarch.> Correct! Nor will he come as a tyrant, disregarding the needs and desires of his People. We can't imagine what form of 'government' will apply in the Kingdom. But until then we are charged to promote creative, loving and redeeming relationships among humans and throughout Creation, in so far as we are given the light to do so. That is the role of anyone in any measure of authority, whether political, religious or just the captain of an amateur football team. |
||
|
As for the ruler's of this world. Perhaps God has instructed us in a certain way so that we do not defile ourselves because of another. I am reminded when Saul was actively looking for David to kill him. Then Saul had to relieve himself and went into a cave to do so. David happened to be hiding in that very cave and could have easily killed Saul. I'll leave it to the reader to rediscover what David said to himself and did. There are many reasons why we are instructed in certain ways. They don't always mean literally. Like in the US military, salute the rank not the man. |
||
|
Something you might be aware of as a citizen of the British Commonwealth, or possibly it's only really thought about in the UK: the late Queen Elizabeth II was regarded in Christian circles as being a Servant Queen who served the Servant King, and exercised her authority in line with that. I think Charles III has absorbed his mother's devotion to service, but it's not so clear whether he has done so out of a Christian faith. He does at least seem to have an awareness that one day he will have to answer to a greater King. |
||
|
Colin 14:25 In my usual plodding way, I'll try to pick up some of your points:- 1. I was 'politically active', but never a politician. In my time I was New South Wales President of the Australian Democrats, a moderate/progressive breakaway from our main Conservative Party. I filled quite a few other party roles as well, but I never sought preselection for a winnable seat because I knew my weaknesses. There were plenty of other candidates much better suited to that public role than I ever was. I was an administrator, strategist and occasional front man in an unwinnable seat so as to marshal local support for the Upper House candidates. 2. Even so, I saw the need for a 'prophetic role'. On more than one occasion I spoke of Nathan confronting David. But Nathan would not have made a good king. A good Third Party is well-suited for that, because it can provide ideas and make them palatable, without ever having to worry about whether or not they will work. Introduce a new idea, get the public aware of a better way in principle, then when there is broader acceptance let the bigger parties with their greater resources work on the details. 3. I had a huge respect for Our Most Gracious Sovereign Lady. I'm a bit more ambivalent about Charles. I respect and appreciate his desire to become 'Defender of Faith' rather than 'Defender of THE Faith', but I see him as being somewhat more self-indulgent than his mother. But let's not assess a character until the play is ended. |
