despite what i reveal in my actions... i am rather easily bothered. i think it is because deep down... i am an idealist -- though my actions are realist. i am sure most would label this as hypocrisy: thinking things should be one way and acting as though the way they are is fine. i would ask you to be less harsh. though prerogative belongs to you.
on xanga, a friend of mine posted a blog because he was upset with the current and unwanted (and unBiblical) mix of Christ's Kingdom and the American dream. in comment, someone responded in defense of the USA/KOG mix. usually, i am lackadaisical about what people believe and am riveted about the why [the reason] and how [the reasoning] behind that belief. briefly put: i don't care what you believe as long as you can defend it.
however, there is one area where this rule finds exception... and even in that case, it is, really, a more severe form of the rule.
before i broach the exception (though, you could probably correctly guess its identity at this point), i will present a proviso: "Because God told me" is a poor reason. i realize that God is more than capable of telling people whatever He jolly well pleases. unless God literally spoke to you in an audible voice... don't use that phrase. it carries with it extraordinarily large undertones that you probably don't intend to use. and besides, God sent an angel to the Mother of His Only Son to tell her about His Birth... so show some humility.
the exception:
America and its 'place' in the Kingdom of God.
i don't know what it is about the topic... but i get ready to throw down anytime i hear someone articulate their take on the nature of the relationship between our country and YHWH. the teachings of Christ and John and Paul seem to not lay the groundwork for such a close relationship between God and government. it is true that Romans 13 speaks to this:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
yet, consider Revelation 18 and its plea:
Then I heard another voice from heaven saying,
‘Come out of her, my people,
so that you do not take part in her sins,
and so that you do not share in her plagues;
for her sins are heaped high as heaven,
and God has remembered her iniquities.
Render to her as she herself has rendered,
and repay her double for her deeds;
mix a double draught for her in the cup she mixed.
As she glorified herself and lived luxuriously,
so give her a like measure of torment and grief.
Since in her heart she says,
“I rule as a queen;
I am no widow,
and I will never see grief”,
therefore her plagues will come in a single day—
pestilence and mourning and famine—
and she will be burned with fire;
for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.’And the kings of the earth, who committed fornication and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning; they will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say,
‘Alas, alas, the great city,
Babylon, the mighty city!
For in one hour your judgement has come.’
before you think i'm transposing this onto America, please do not. "And the kings of the earth"... i am transposing this onto government. again, be patient with what you think about what i am explaining. i have been thinking about this type of 'contradiction' that presents itself many times in Scripture. i doubt that i am the only one to think on or believe this... but i believe that a theology (not the right word, still looking for it) of Delicate Balance is needed. i used to call it theology of moderation.
so, are we to respect government as it has been instituted and given authority by God? yes. are we to be wary of governments as they will be judged for their actions and affiliations with the Evil One? yes. it is a balance. do not be too disinterested nor should we be too involved.
forgive my ramblings,
alc
4 comments:
Romans 13. now here's a gem. it's a soapbox of mine, so now you're in for a sermon. you asked for it. even if it's taken completely out of context, it still speaks to nothing but a neutral position toward the government.
and on top of that, i've always thought that the context of Romans 13 within the greater text of Romans dealt a considerable blow to most of the popular interpretations that I've heard spouted about that chapter.
Paul's message up until this point has been aimed at establishing the identity of the people of God. He hammers out a few side issues along the way, certainly (this being one of them), but [very] loosely the message starts out with "the law" as the identifier of God's people; the Christ; then those who are "in Christ". By establishing those who are "in Christ", he sets them apart from the entire rest of the humanity. It is painfully obvious that this is true, given Romans 5.
and after all of this, the context sounds something like:
Therefore, given the fact that there now exist on this planet a group of people who answer DIRECTLY to the God of the universe... how ought these people interact with secular governments... (or if i may phrase it the way the question seems to beg to be phrased) do you really expect these people who have experienced recreation by the very Spirit of God, and who have been given a corporate identity stronger than any ethnic or national identity and who answer to the One who created heaven and earth and Who is above all kings... do you expect these people to have to obey the leaders of this world who are still living by the flesh of Adam and not by the Spirit of Christ?
this is the question which Paul anticipates will at some point burn in the minds of all those who hear this letter up to this point, and so in that context, he writes (in the John Raines paraphrase)
"...look, just because you're the people of God doesn't mean that you can just break all the laws and completely disregard what the rulers of this world require of you. God put them in control of this world - not you - so when you buck them, you're really bucking His plan. Besides, they serve a good little purpose, quite often, and if you give them the finger, then you deserve what you get. so pay your taxes, ok?"
by this point in the letter, he realizes that some people are going to need a pretty good explanation for why they should have to do anything the government wants, and this is a paragraph that reigns in that immoderate side.
there was no reason for Paul to include a lot of disclaimers on this passage because this passage is a disclaimer on the rest of the letter!
i realize that you know all of this, but we all like reading self-affirming theology, so I hope you've enjoyed it... and it just feels good to say sometimes.
peace,
Johnny
damn!
Ummmm... If i were a black woman at church i would stand and say "Amen!!! Preach it brother Johny!!!!" with my hands in the air, but I'm not so I'll silently type this response and say that i enjoyed reading this blog and response.
Great work.
Post a Comment