1776 & Liberation Theology

I think the point is more that to make war over the legitimacy or illigitimacy of the authorities in question is always wrong - it kills people, creates hardship, & damages the world we are asked to care for. And it is a moot point really as authority has quite obviously passed from one government to another. Some sort of government is necessary to maintain order & as it has been stable for some time now I would argue for its legitimacy. Also it is man, not God, causing all the strife & wars, so we are never going to have a completely legit authority; it will always be corrupt to a greater or lesser degree but as far as possible we are called to live in peace with all men.

Jehane said:

I think the point is more that to make war over the legitimacy or illigitimacy of the authorities in question is always wrong - it kills people, creates hardship, & damages the world we are asked to care for. And it is a moot point really as authority has quite obviously passed from one government to another. Some sort of government is necessary to maintain order & as it has been stable for some time now I would argue for its legitimacy. Also it is man, not God, causing all the strife & wars, so we are never going to have a completely legit authority; it will always be corrupt to a greater or lesser degree but as far as possible we are called to live in peace with all men.

Click to expand...

What then of a situation where the ruling authority kills people, creates hardship, damages resources, and only keeps some sense of "order" by killing dissenters and keeping nearly everyone else in fear. Supporting such a state as the "authority of God" then become support for ungodly actions.

This has happened throughout history. Rome did it & Jesus told the Jews, a subjugated people, to render unto Ceasar what was Caesar's. It is not necessarily right nor pleasant & Jesus had some particularly harsh words to say about Herod Antipas but he paid his taxes to Rome like any other law-abiding Jew.

I still do not think further acts of violence against the initiators of violence achieves anything besides more chaos. I do think peaceful reactions to injustice, persecution & violence do more to quickly bring about stability & peace than all the rantings about how wrong & unfair it all is ever will. Scared rulers are almost always harsh rulers.

The reality is that sinful humans will always seek power & be corrupted by it but that does not give those who are called by Christ's name the right to further undermine whatever govt., remains, or to initiate change through violence. Most of the social changes that have seen the betterment of prisoner's , the mentally impaired, the insane & the crippled lives have been brought about by Christians peacefully seeking change within the governmental system that was already in place

Jehane said:

This has happened throughout history. Rome did it & Jesus told the Jews, a subjugated people, to render unto Ceasar what was Caesar's. It is not necessarily right nor pleasant & Jesus had some particularly harsh words to say about Herod Antipas but he paid his taxes to Rome like any other law-abiding Jew.

I still do not think further acts of violence against the initiators of violence achieves anything besides more chaos. I do think peaceful reactions to injustice, persecution & violence do more to quickly bring about stability & peace than all the rantings about how wrong & unfair it all is ever will. Scared rulers are almost always harsh rulers.

The reality is that sinful humans will always seek power & be corrupted by it but that does not give those who are called by Christ's name the right to further undermine whatever govt., remains, or to initiate change through violence. Most of the social changes that have seen the betterment of prisoner's , the mentally impaired, the insane & the crippled lives have been brought about by Christians peacefully seeking change within the governmental system that was already in place

Click to expand...

So-called "passive resistence" (a misnomer if there ever was one - if you are truly passive you don't resist) can certainly be very effective in subverting unjust regimes.

But I think we can wrongly connect "peacefully seeking change" with ideas that avoid radically confronting injustices, especially toward powers that exalt themselves and their ideas above Christ's.

I think that Paul in certain ways was radically political, along with the rest of the major Biblical writers and characters. In interest of brevity, consider just three arguments for this assertion.

Paul's Idea of Christ as Kyrios - Kyrios meant "Lord," and only the Roman Emperor was Kyrios, a god in fact, on top of the Roman social order. When Paul referred to Jesus Christ as Kyrios, it confronted the Roman Empire and its system in a major way and was political.

Paul's Idea of the Parousia or "Appearing" - Parousia to the Roman government meant the visit of the Roman Emperor to the provinces and cities to bring his version of peace and justice. When Paul took up parousia to mean Christ the Kyrios, it confronted the Roman Empire profoundly and was political.

Paul's Doctrine of Salvation - Paul articulated his doctrine of salvation with exactly the discourse and legal ins and outs of the Roman slavery and social system. This use, especially coupled with Kyrios, profoundly confronted the entire social order of the Roman Empire. This was political. For more on this point, read this sermon:

filelodge.com/files/room38/1082147/NTSlavery.pdf - (copy and paste it into your browser)

Even just Paul's nomenclatures concerning kyrios and parousia, coupled with the radically shocking way he depicted salvation in terms of the unjust Roman social system, antagonized the Roman authorities.

This is apart even from any actions taken, e.g., proclaiming in public that Christ is Kyrios (and King!), that He brings salvation (peace and justice) to all people (not just the privildged), and that His parousia is just about to bring earthly peace and justice, yes, Kyrios Christ is even now standing at the door awaiting to walk through it and bring it.

This utterly antagonized Rome - infuriated Rome muderously, in fact. Because it was utterly and totally radical.

And so the lions were eventually let loose to feed on Christians placed into closed spaces.

And Rome had Paul's head.

And Peter's entire carcass.

And John was relegated to a small rock surrounded by sea and deadly sea storms and even more deadly warships and soldiers.

Etc.

Kyrios, parousia, and salvation articulated in terms that were unmistakably an affront to the unjust Roman social order--these nomenclatures and accompanying actions were highly, perhaps very, very deliberately, political.

And while they were not violent, one can hardly apply to them "passive" or any idea of "Christians peacefully seeking change within the governmental system that was already in place."

In the minds of many average Romans, and most certainly in the view of the imperial Roman State, it was even radically political...the very reason that Rome struck back.

(Note how kyrios and the doctrine of salvation connote core tenants of Christianity, with some form of a parousia coming close behind.)

I didn't say I was passive - or believed in passivity. My bent is towards quakerism, which has always very much concerned itsef with social justice. There is a reason Jesus called the peacemakers 'blessed.'

All of this talk about Paul terms is fine, but where did Paul confront the Roman authorities. His writings were to the addressed to the Christians. Paul was not standing in the Senate telling the Roman authorities to change.

The biggest issue here is that Christians should be looking to spiritual matters. Jesus didn't tell us to go into all the world and fix the political systems that oppress their people.

He told us

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Click to expand...

Using human wisdom, we can show several reasons to get involved in changing the political systems of the world, but where is the New Testament example of Christians trying to change the government. Moving forward in time, where is the early church example of Christians trying to change the government. As far as I know, Christians didn't get involved in government until they started gaining political power. Then of course great things happened as a result.....The end of Pax Romana, the dark ages, and let's not forget the glorious crusades, or maybe the inquisistions. Now there were some politically active Christians making a difference in an ungodly world. Some were so successful that all of the citizens of their countries were Christian from the time of thier birth.

I'm not talking about politics, which bores me to death, but social activism - Elizabeth Fry, Mother Theresa etc. This is the essences of faith, to act as Christ acted.

Jehane said:

I'm not talking about politics, which bores me to death, but social activism - Elizabeth Fry, Mother Theresa etc. This is the essences of faith, to act as Christ acted.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying Jehane. You are speaking of actually doing something about the problem. House the homeless, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, etc. This approach I agree with totally.

For many making a difference means addressing the physical needs (which I agree with) and working at changing the government's attitude toward the problem. My post was directed toward the attitude of changing the government. In my understanding changing the government is not illustrated in the Bible or in early christianity.

I don't think we are called to stand by and do nothing. I believe we are called to change peoples attitudes through living the example that Christ left us.

Danfrey said:

All of this talk about Paul terms is fine, but where did Paul confront the Roman authorities. His writings were to the addressed to the Christians. Paul was not standing in the Senate telling the Roman authorities to change.

The biggest issue here is that Christians should be looking to spiritual matters. Jesus didn't tell us to go into all the world and fix the political systems that oppress their people.

Click to expand...

Wow, talk about a collasal adventure in missing the point, and a heck-of-a-fine example of one impossing their life experiences and own thought on to the Scriptures.

And you seem to be treating the Bible like it recently dropped out of the sky and is devoid of a concrete historical and political context.

And you seem to think that Paul and other Christians of his day lived in some bubble seperate from their society.

Niether Paul nor any other Christians needed to stand in the Roman senate. When they articulated the faith within terms directly affrontive to Rome, Rome heard in no uncertain terms.

Besides, Theophilus was certainly a member of the Roman political elite; and if one can read Luke-Acts as devoid of things directly confronting him, both spiritually and socially, then they really are reading the Bible like its dropped out of the sky with their name on it recently.

In fact, it would have been not much of a big deal to Rome if Christians had just kept their message to the citizens in the Senate. It is when that message was proclaimed "out there" in the public that it became so affrontive.

Your compartmentalizing of "spiritual" and "social" is false.

When Moses under God delivered the children of Israel out of Egypt, was it spiritual or social/political?

When the Prophets spoke against sin, both Israel's and the nations', was that sin spiritual or social/political?

When Paul won Onesimus out of slavery, was it spiritual or social/political?

Etc.

Yea, that's what I thought. It was both.

Jehane said:

I'm not talking about politics, which bores me to death, but social activism.

Click to expand...

But social activism is political. Any and all actions are political. Nothing is apolitical.

Nope, sorry. It doesn't matter which side of a political fence someone sits on, or if they sit on the fence itself, if a person needs help, then you help. I can't help if you want to make that political; I'm only interested in people & not their political beliefs - at least until after their need has been met.

menno said:

Nero was about as rotten a leader as there was yet Paul (a Roman citizen) didn't unite a revolution to overthrow him.

You are suggesting that we can decide what is an "acceptable" Godly legitimate authority? Church can't even come to a consensus on baptism. So then the Romans 13 is subjective--submit only to those we "feel" are acceptable?

Yup, God uses whatever means to set up the earthly authorities. You are suggesting that the American gov't is legit, yet it was born in blood. Guess most all gov'ts are.

Click to expand...

Okay, forget thinking, just get the Bible out and treat it like a rule book dropped from the sky recently, demanding to be to be mindlessly followed.

But let us say that you live in Central Elbonia.

Recall how last month a revolutionary group from the bush set itself into power through a coup. Well, yesterday, yet another faction came in and overthrew that government.

But as soon as the new faction came to power, infighting began. So half of the faction moves to Northern Elbonia and the other to Southern Elbonia. Each set themselves into power. Both claim they are the legitimate authority in Elbonia.

So there you sit in Central Elbonia, perplexed. Who is your "God ordained authority"? How will you decide?

By the way, this exact scenario did occur in history, in Haiti.

Jehane said:

Nope, sorry. It doesn't matter which side of a political fence someone sits on, or if they sit on the fence itself, if a person needs help, then you help. I can't help if you want to make that political; I'm only interested in people & not their political beliefs - at least until after their need has been met.

Click to expand...

Your apolitical intentions in the matter are irrelevant. During a political upheavel, for example, you personally may not be interested in which side an injured person is on, but you can bet that those around you will be. Your actions in caring for a person on one side or the other or in whatever combination will therefore be unavoidably political. Your actions, apart from your intent, are nontheless political. All actions have political implications. Nothing is apolitical.

Hi, menno, thanks for the welcome!

This "no allegiance to any government except the kingdom of God" seems to go against common notions of Romans 13:1-2, etc. It seems like Christian Anarchism.

See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Anarchism

(copy and paste the above into your browser's address window)

Is this what you mean?

Actually Christian Anarchism goes opposite two kingdoms theology. Two Kingdoms theology says I will submit to whatever government is in power over me, even if that government is an evil dictator who gained power yesterday. As far as I see it, Romans 13 speaks of the concept of Government. It is not directed toward any particular government. When we speak of allegience, we are speaking of fighting for the government, or participating in it. As people who hold to a two kingdoms theology, it really doesn't matter what is going on in government. I won't raise a sword for or against any government. I will feed the hungry regardless of the flag they honor.

For many making a difference means addressing the physical needs (which I agree with) and working at changing the government's attitude toward the problem. My post was directed toward the attitude of changing the government. In my understanding changing the government is not illustrated in the Bible or in early christianity.

Click to expand...

It wasn't available to people in Biblical times or to early Christians. Their only choices were to submit or rebel. We in this century have other choices.

I assume that because early Christians didn't drive cars, use telephones or shop in grocery stores, you are opposed to doing those, too?