I think it probably goes beyond splitting hairs, and hopefully I can clarify my position here. But in any case there's no need to apologize. I enjoy discussing these things, even with those who disagree with me and I very much appreciate your non-confrontational demeanor.
Maybe this has more to do with our stance on the Millennial kingdom. (1000 year reign, and all) Over all, we don't disagree on much here. Maybe slight variations in theology?
I'm really not talking about the Millennial kingdom, but the eternal kingdom which I believe Jesus established during his time in the world. I believe we are citizens of the kingdom now and that we are to be ambassadors to the earthly kingdoms, living in them, but remaining loyal to our only true King. A visiting ambassador submits to the laws of the country he or she is in, but that does not mean he or she agrees with the laws or is a subject of that country.
I think this is a biblical view. In the second chapter of Daniel, he prophesies about four kingdoms. The last is the Roman Empire. Speaking of the future Roman Empire, Daniel says, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom" (v. 44). Christ set up his kingdom while he was here. We are either citizens of this kingdom, or citizens of earthly kingdoms, but there is no dual citizenship. We cannot serve two masters.
I know that when most people hear "kingdom of God" they think of us dying and going to heaven. This is not how Jesus speaks of it. He talks about the kingdom in the present tense, and he tells his followers that “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst" (Luke 17:20-21).
The significance of realizing this has had a substantial effect on my spiritual life. If the kingdom has already been established, and I claim citizenship to that kingdom, how can I be loyal to another kingdom? When Israel wanted to be like the other nations and have a human king, God felt rejected. He told Samuel to warn the Israelites of the consequences of following a human leader (1 Samuel 8:10-18).
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. ”
Are these not the things our human leaders do? What if Jesus came not just to collect souls for some future heavenly reward, but to live the way he taught us to live and to show the world a better way? I'm not saying we won't have a heavenly reward, but I am saying that Jesus calls us to a way of life which entails following the commandments he left us with as citizens of his kingdom, and being loyal to that kingdom. When you look closely at those commandments, they are not at all compatible with the way the worldly kingdoms operate. He told us to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and forgive. That doesn't fly very well with worldly presidents, legislatures, and courts.
How can I pledge allegiance to the flag of the USA when I've already pledged my allegiance to Christ? Unless church and state are guaranteed to always be in perfect alignment -- and I'm sure we can agree that's not the case -- I have no business promising to align myself with the state. It's adulterous.
I find that many who claim to be "Anarchists" today want to have absolutely no governing powers established. No legal restrictions or anything else. To me, this seems to be a "broad brush" approach on steroids. It's more my opinion than anything else.
OK, I guess I see what you're saying, but if you look a little more closely, I think you'll find that anarchism is much more multifaceted than you believe. There are a wide range of views on how anarchism might work. (Might you be painting with a roller? Look at Leo Tolstoy, Dorothy Day, Henry David Thoreau, Noam Chomsky and I think you'll find they all have widely differing views).
I understand the passage as it was intended, that we should 'render' to God what belongs to Him. My point was more that apparently the Lord had no problem with government asking something from people (like taxes) as long as government did not make mandatory the "worship" of leadership. That belongs to God only.
What
doesn't belong to God only?
The wording Jesus used, and the fact that he showed them the coin with the graven image of Caesar and an inscription proclaiming him the son of god, I don't think Jesus is suggesting that we should be loyal to our earthly governments.
I could say so much more about this scripture, but I fear I've gone on too long already. I didn't mean to hijack the thread.
Very true. But does trust, faith and loyalty always mean worship? Worship of something other than the Lord is sin. To trust government, or to be loyal to your country doesn't automatically mean you are worshiping it.
I hope that my explanation of my views clarifies why I draw no distinction between the two.
I would imagine that this would depend on what you mean by "support". In the case of something like abortion, for instance, which you and I would probably agree is against the teachings of God. I don't like the idea of abortion, however it has been determined to be "Constitutional" that government not inhibit the right of people to receive the procedure if they so choose. I totally disagree with this, but I am not going to join a group of people to violently overthrow the government because of it. Honestly, I don't believe you feel a lot different about it. Neither of us like it, but it currently is the law of the land. I would never condone the practice, or support it.
Well, as much as I personally hate the idea of abortion, I'm not sure the government is in the best position to make some of those decisions. We need to decide what government is for. Do we want an earthly government that forces people to obey the Bible? This sounds good to some people, but it has a way of backfiring. There are a lot of different interpretations of what the Bible tells us to do. Do you trust the government to get it right?
I put my trust in Christ and that He has a plan for all of it. I can't see the whole plan, so I will "occupy" until he establishes His kingdom at the end of the age. Like Paul, I would continue to tell others about Christ until I go home to meet the Lord. If that happens because I willfully disobey some future restriction that prohibits the practice of witnessing, so be it.
As witnesses, should we not forsake the world? We tend to think of the iconic "denounce Jesus as the Son of God or I'll kill you" as the only way our faith may come into conflict with the governments of the world. I see it as much more insidious than that. What do we do when local governments prohibit feeding the homeless in public places? Jesus told us to feed the hungry. What do we do when we are asked to vote for one of two people, both of whom will drop bombs on people, torture people, and other atrocities? Jesus said love your enemies. I see these conflicts everywhere. Like I said, the commandments of Jesus are in direct conflict with much of what governments do.
