Faith & Duty

[mindlight]

Have to preach this Sunday on this theme.
1) What is faith? (Heb 11)
2) What is duty?
3) How to they work together, do they conflict or complement

I was thinking about the example of Bonhoeffer. Did he show a lack of faith and a failure of duty attempting to assassinate Hitler for instance. His attempt seemed to contradict Romans 13:1-7 which implies that we trust in God no matter how bad the authorities and should carry out the duties we have been given in the place we have been assigned them respecting the insitu authorities even if they are Nero himself. BY this reckoning German soldiers, high on Pervitin, are not guilty for fighting for Germany in WW2 but maybe they were guilty if they murdered people in cold blood even under orders. Are there orders therefore that you should refuse.

Did the fact that many soldiers were on drugs to enhance their performance diminish their moral responsibility in carrying out the duties defined by their commanders. Can a person see God clearly when high.
The Nazi Death Machine: Hitler's Drugged Soldiers - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International

Also the American revolution seems quite faithless and Americans had a duty to the King which they failed in.

It is hard to think of roles where our faith and the duties which we are given will not sometimes contradict. How should we deal with these situations. Does it come down to selective obedience to earthly authorities and total obedience to our heavenly Father even if it costs us our lives in this earth?

It seems faith in God can and should make us very unpopular sometimes and our duties to God can sometimes contradict our duties to worldly authorities with deadly consequences for us.

Luke 17:5-10
The apostles said to the LORD, "Increase our faith!" 6He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you. 7"Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? 8Won't he rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? 9Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty

 

[public hermit]

I was thinking about the example of Bonhoeffer. Did he show a lack of faith and a failure of duty attempting to assassinate Hitler for instance. His attempt seemed to contradict Romans 13:1-7 which implies that we trust in God no matter how bad the authorities

I don't think Bonhoeffer showed a lack of faith or a failure of duty. I don't read Romans 13 as a blanket statement meaning submit to any and all governments no matter what they do. Government has been instituted by God for the good of the governed. That is why they have the "sword," to restrain evil. However, once that authority is no longer seeking the good of the governed, then it is no longer an authority under God because it is not serving its purpose. In other words, a government that is doing what is evil is no longer "God's servant for your good." Although Paul does not make an explicit distinction between legitimate government and illegitimate government, I think it is implied in his description of the purpose of government.

 

[Albion]

It sounds like the key is whether or not we have an obligation to do wrong simply because it's the government demanding it. That is a bit different from refusing to pay one's taxes to the taxing authority, or overthrowing the government because there is a vision of some idealized form of government that might take its place (which by the way doesn't apply to the American Revolution which was prompted by the refusal of the English government to obey its own laws with respect to colonies).

 

[mindlight]

I don't think Bonhoeffer showed a lack of faith or a failure of duty. I don't read Romans 13 as a blanket statement meaning submit to any and all governments no matter what they do. Government has been instituted by God for the good of the governed. That is why they have the "sword," to restrain evil. However, once that authority is no longer seeking the good of the governed, then it is no longer an authority under God because it is not serving its purpose. In other words, a government that is doing what is evil is no longer "God's servant for your good." Although Paul does not make an explicit distinction between legitimate government and illegitimate government, I think it is implied in his description of the purpose of government.

The Nazi government was still enforcing the rule of law, still handing out pensions to pensioners and running basic services for the majority of the population. You seem to think that its racism and oppression towards some of its citizens and violent aggression against those in other lands was sufficient grounds to completely overthrow it by violence. That therefore Bonhoeffer was not simply plotting rebellion,treason and murder. I cannot see the bible says that. I understand conscientious objectors to certain laws but overthrowing the government in place is not our call.

 

[Albion]

The Nazi government was still enforcing the rule of law, still handing out pensions to pensioners and running basic services for the majority of the population. You seem to think that its racism and oppression towards some of its citizens and violent aggression against those in other lands was sufficient grounds to completely overthrow it by violence.

That seems a correct interpretation, sure.

 

[mindlight]

It sounds like the key is whether or not we have an obligation to do wrong simply because it's the government demanding it. That is a bit different from refusing to pay one's taxes to the taxing authority, or overthrowing the government because there is a vision of some idealized form of government that might take its place (which by the way doesn't apply to the American Revolution which was prompted by the refusal of the English government to obey its own laws with respect to colonies).

We have no obligation to do wrong just cause the government tells us to. But what is wrong and who defines it. Some things are obviously wrong like murder others less so like fighting in the army for instance. Is it wrong for a German soldier to fire at Russians cause by doing so he is defending a Nazi regime and plans for expansion? Can a soldier pick and choose which orders he follows and which not.

Maybe if the government indeed all government is corrupted and toxic in its decision making that would mean rejecting any rules or earthly authority. But does that rejection extend to armed revolution or assassination plots or simple civil disobedience and non compliance. Surely faith means being able to endure the worst this world can throw at us rather than seeking to destroy it using worldly methods.

The British government of George III was a lot more Christian in its outlook than was that of Nero in Pauls time yet Paul urged obedience and respect to the Roman authority. The American revolution was fought over issues like taxes being raised to a sufficient level to support the British military presence which had just saved you guys from the French. Also since most colonists at that time were British subjects by birth it is harder to justify rebellion at the time. It was the prerogative of the British government to decide its own rules on colonies and those they decided on were far from unreasonable.

 

[public hermit]

You seem to think that its racism and oppression towards some of its citizens and violent aggression against those in other lands was sufficient grounds to completely overthrow it by violence.

Yes. Bonhoeffer knew what was going on and he was right. Many knew what was going on. Christians like he and Barth knew. So, I stand by what I said, especially in that case.

 

[public hermit]

Surely faith means being able to endure the worst this world can throw at us

As a personal decision, I agree with you. As a Christian, I can decide for myself to let the world destroy me. In other words, I can decide for myself to "turn the other cheek." But, I can never stand by and decide that someone else should turn the other cheek. When people are defenseless and are being abused, by an individual or a government, we have an obligation to stand in the gap.

 

[mindlight]

As a personal decision, I agree with you. As a Christian, I can decide for myself to let the world destroy me. In other words, I can decide for myself to "turn the other cheek." But, I can never stand by and decide that someone else should turn the other cheek. When people are defenseless and are being abused, by an individual or a government, we have an obligation to stand in the gap.

Most Germans in Nazi Germany were not being abused. INdeed the regime organised things so that the concentration camps were out of sight and out of mind. So most of the time there were no opportunities to be a rebel. You obeyed the traffic laws stopped at red lights, paid your taxes etc. To proactively choose violent rebellion is what you are suggesting is a Christian position. To take up a sword and cut the rulers head off with it. But where is the case for such vigilante actions in scripture. I cannot think of any examples in fact. This sounds like an argument for Christian terrorism and people like the Unibomber.

 

[public hermit]

Most Germans in Nazi Germany were not being abused. INdeed the regime organised things so that the concentration camps were out of sight and out of mind.

How did Bonhoeffer know? How did Barth know? How much of it was people just not wanting to know? Who wants to admit that their government is perpetrating horrendous evil? I commend those two Christians for being willing to be honest with themselves and with the public to whom they ministered.

To proactively choose violent rebellion is what you are suggesting is a Christian position.

You are making a good point, so I want to try and be careful here. I am suggestion rebellion against unjust government, a government which is clearly not seeking the good of its citizens. What form that takes should be fitting to the situation. There is a reason why no one (to the best of my knowledge) tried non-violent resistance in Nazi Germany. And the reason is that they would simply be slaughtered, no questions asked. Non-violence will work when a government has certain humanitarian principles in place that they (the government) are still trying to uphold, even if ever so badly.

I don't want to be trite about this. Rebellion, especially violent rebellion, is not something to be taken lightly. I would say, circumstances should be pretty extreme before it happens. But, I would not argue that under no circumstances should it happen.

 

[public hermit]

By the way, this is difficult material to preach on (I assume you will be preaching on something related to this, based on the OP). I commend you for tackling such difficult material and I hope nothing I say gets in the way of what the Lord has laid on your heart. I'm an idiot talking on a forum. You have a grave responsibility that I support and will pray for you. May God bless your service to God's people.

 

[Albion]

We have no obligation to do wrong just cause the government tells us to. But what is wrong and who defines it. Some things are obviously wrong like murder others less so like fighting in the army for instance. Is it wrong for a German soldier to fire at Russians cause by doing so he is defending a Nazi regime and plans for expansion? Can a soldier pick and choose which orders he follows and which not.

It's an important question; however I didn't want to put the cart before the horse by addressing it in advance of the more basic distinction I referred to.

The American revolution was fought over issues like taxes being raised to a sufficient level to support the British military presence which had just saved you guys from the French. Also since most colonists at that time were British subjects by birth it is harder to justify rebellion at the time.

Well, I didn't expect everyone to catch the parenthetical comment I made there, but that's all right. It was correct, but we don't need yet another argument, do we?

 

[mindlight]

By the way, this is difficult material to preach on (I assume you will be preaching on something related to this, based on the OP). I commend you for tackling such difficult material and I hope nothing I say gets in the way of what the Lord has laid on your heart. I'm an idiot talking on a forum. You have a grave responsibility that I support and will pray for you. May God bless your service to God's people.

Faith is in a God we cannot see, who made all things out of what is not seen. Believers trusted Him when all the evidence contradicted that trust. Abraham was past age and his wife barren until old age. Corrie Ten Boom believed in the goodness of God from the deepest darkest pit of hell. Wilberforce battled his whole life believing that slaves should be free. The life of faith is something that stubbornly clings to God when all others desert or mock Him. Christ could have called down 12 legions of Angel's to demolish the Roman Empire that put Him on trial but instead went to the cross as God willed and as dutiful Son anxious to complete His mission. The Roman's were far worse than the Nazis and infinitely more than the British but Jesus did not wave a sword in their faces and the mature example of his disciples slaughtered to a man except John was the same. Even John was put in a pot of boiling oil by Domitian but miraculously survived by Gods intervention not that of some American militia in camouflage and waving customised assault rifles because some lawyer told them that the government was not obeying it's own rules.

 

[public hermit]

Faith is in a God we cannot see, who made all things out of what is not seen. Believers trusted Him when all the evidence contradicted that trust. Abraham was past age and his wife barren until old age. Corrie Ten Boom believed in the goodness of God from the deepest darkest pit of hell. Wilberforce battled his whole life believing that slaves should be free. The life of faith is something that stubbornly clings to God when all others desert or mock Him. Christ could have called down 12 legions of Angel's to demolish the Roman Empire that put Him on trial but instead went to the cross as God willed and as dutiful Son anxious to complete His mission. The Roman's were far worse than the Nazis and infinitely more than the British but Jesus did not wave a sword in their faces and the mature example of his disciples slaughtered to a man except John was the same. Even John was put in a pot of boiling oil by Domitian but miraculously survived by Gods intervention not that of some American militia in camouflage and waving customised assault rifles because some lawyer told them that the government was not obeying it's own rules.

Point well taken. I think that will preach.

 

[mindlight]

How did Bonhoeffer know? How did Barth know? How much of it was people just not wanting to know? Who wants to admit that their government is perpetrating horrendous evil? I commend those two Christians for being willing to be honest with themselves and with the public to whom they ministered.

The mass killing camps were not in Germany but soldiers knew and were often ordered to commit horrendous crimes for the sake of their children's future, often doped up to combat their fears and reservations. But enough people knew or could work it out. It is one thing to see and another to decide on an appropriate response.

You are making a good point, so I want to try and be careful here. I am suggestion rebellion against unjust government, a government which is clearly not seeking the good of its citizens. What form that takes should be fitting to the situation. There is a reason why no one (to the best of my knowledge) tried non-violent resistance in Nazi Germany. And the reason is that they would simply be slaughtered, no questions asked. Non-violence will work when a government has certain humanitarian principles in place that they (the government) are still trying to uphold, even if ever so badly.

I don't want to be trite about this. Rebellion, especially violent rebellion, is not something to be taken lightly. I would say, circumstances should be pretty extreme before it happens. But, I would not argue that under no circumstances should it happen.

You say that , as do a lot of Americans , Scots and even Englishmen who rebelled against the crown. But where is the biblical case for such rebellion. Faith in a God who promises us the new heavens and the new Earth does not require the death of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other godless men at our hands because they all face judgment soon enough at Gods perfect judgement seat.

 

[public hermit]

I'll consider what you're saying. I have been wrong many times, so I need to think carefully about this.

 

[mindlight]

I must admit the hardest thing here is working out ones own duties and calling and then just getting on with it. A slave has it easy as he has a master who sets the parameters of his life in which his duties are clearly delineated. A free man has it harder as he has to choose his own path and work out his calling in fear and trembling. He will make mistakes , take wrong turns and have to double back to find his path. Some get completely lost on the way and increasingly we only except that God Himself could rebuke us for our direction, while at the same time not listening , in faith, for His voice to guide us.

 

[public hermit]

I agree. I like the Kierkegaard reference, by the way.

 

[mindlight]

As a personal decision, I agree with you. As a Christian, I can decide for myself to let the world destroy me. In other words, I can decide for myself to "turn the other cheek." But, I can never stand by and decide that someone else should turn the other cheek. When people are defenseless and are being abused, by an individual or a government, we have an obligation to stand in the gap.

I could say this about abortion clinics where murders are paid for by our taxes. Yet most Christian's understand that blowing these places up and executing the doctors is not how God wants us to respond. I would fight to defend my kids if I thought that fighting would save them but I would not deny Christ even if they were threatened by unspeakable
Horrors. Simple reason , you cannot trust a man who would threaten kids like that to do the right thing anyway. Sometimes even for others you simply have to trust God. If you hit a Roman soldier , he,d crucify your whole village, if you hit a Gestapo man he,d shoot your entire family before your eyes. How does our violent resistance help against such evil. We overcome evil by the word of our testimony, by the blood of Jesus and because we are prepared to sacrifice our lives if necessary.

 

[mindlight]

I agree. I like the Kierkegaard reference, by the way.

Which bit was Kierkegaard?