Should christians stand up for themselves?

[1rreducibly Complex]

How should we think about these things today? On what grounds scripturally and in what situations are christians permitted to stand up for themselves?

Christians simply fill.

Whatever role, God best equipped them to take.

Some are well equipped to be counselors, advisors, healers, debaters, protectors and so on.

What we lack at the moment, and might never have in this modern age are real leaders or prophets. We may have to get used to having little or no real guidance from someone close to God. Something followers of the faith in past ages, had in spades and took for granted.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Christians simply fill.

Whatever role, God best equipped them to take.

Some are well equipped to be counselors, advisors, healers, debaters, protectors and so on.

What we lack at the moment, and might never have in this modern age are real leaders or prophets. We may have to get used to having little or no real guidance from someone close to God. Something followers of the faith in past ages, had in spades and took for granted.

Just as you say in your avatar, "You will never be ready— just start.", I see as often as not, people God uses in roles they are NOT equipped to take, at least not according to our precepts. God usually, it seems to me, uses "all the wrong things" and allows/causes "all the wrong things" to happen, in part to show that HE is the one who makes things go right in the end, and in part because those of us who don't quite tell the truth can 'reach into' (communicate with) the minds of those who can't quite think the truth.

(God also does this because it is one way of shaping us into our place in the Kingdom of Heaven, but that is tangential to the subject at hand.)

 

[Ligurian]

How should we act if we are ever wrongfully accused? How far should we go to have the matter set straight?

In the case of Scripture, always defend the truth... and by doing that, you defend the one who spoke it... including yourself.

Because, in this day and age, silence means consent.

 

[FireDragon76]

More often than not, it's the non-Christian that is on the receiving end of persecution in the western world, so I think it's mostly an academic exercise that doesn't bear much relevance to lived reality.

 

[jamiec]

There is a place for defense of the founding principles of one's nation, and likewise, for defense of rights, particularly those of one's family, neighbors and brethren. Yeah, self gets involved in that.

A tangent comment on the New Testament, concerning the claim that the Church operated as its own governing body: If the church can do so, it is still under the authority of whatever country it is in. For example, the Vatican has no authority over the lives and rights of people (even Catholics) in America, though they may try to suppress or ignore crimes by Catholics or against Catholics. Particularly, under the US Constitution 1st Amendment, in the US no religious entity is to be allowed to do so. Some things, of course, such as some disputes, can be handled by the entity, but CRIME against the laws of the state or country are to be prosecuted by the state or country.

The Vatican has authority over the lives of Catholics throughout the world, the USA included. What it does not have is, direct temporal authority over any of them, except for the 1,000 in the Vatican City State. To administer the sacraments, or to teach, or to annul a marriage, or to preach, are all acts of authority. None of them require the consent of the State, but all require the consent of the Church; though this has not always been so.

Some matters are mixed: that is, they contain elements as a result of which they fall under the jurisdiction of both the Church and the State. Stealing the Eucharist from a church counts both as a sacrilege (so that it falls under the responsibility & authority of the CC) & as a crime of theft, and possibly of vandalism, and breaking & entering (so that it falls, or can fall - depending on the laws in a given jurisdiction - under the authority of the State).

The Holy See has frequently entered into Concordats with (usually) sovereign states, for the purpose of adjusting relations with them, in order to avoid collisions between the two powers in cases when the rights and duties of both might be opposed or in collision. Here is a recent example: Concordat of 2009 - Wikipedia

 

[com7fy8]

Yes, do what the Holy Spirit has us do, in each case.

And trust God who will do things better than we might try to have things go

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Vatican has authority over the lives of Catholics throughout the world, the USA included. What it does not have is, direct temporal authority over any of them, except for the 1,000 in the Vatican City State. To administer the sacraments, or to teach, or to annul a marriage, or to preach, are all acts of authority. None of them require the consent of the State, but all require the consent of the Church; though this has not always been so.

You said, "authority over the lives of Catholics". I certainly hope you mean only Catholics, when you say that "the sacraments, or to teach, or to annul a marriage, or to preach, are all acts of authority. None of them require the consent of the State, but all require the consent of the Church"! But I will preach, teach, (though I will not annul a marriage), and administer the sacraments according to my conscience and/or command of God — not of the authority of any church, except as under the auspices of, as a bow to, the authority of that particular church body.

I remember visiting a Southern Baptist Church when I was a young adult, and hearing the way they talked, using terms like, "the Baptist Faith". One speaker was talking about the numbers of Baptist missionaries in different parts of the world, and at one point he actually said something to the effect of, "This means that [such and such] a percentage of the world is unevangelized."! To me that thinking is outrageous.

There is scriptural and theological reason to protest against the claim that Christ is not the exclusive way to Heaven. But when the RCC claims to be The Church, in plain contradiction to the Scriptural fact that all the Elect are The Church, I almost want to revert to what I was taught as a child, that the RCC is almost not even "christian", but a tool of the devil.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Did St Paul ever stand up for his rights as a citizen? I think there is scriptural grounds to say that he did. But I also believe he wasn't doing so in an egoistic manner. He was using his citizenship to advance the Gospel. He appealed on one occasion to Caesar (the secular authority of those days). Of course one had to have a very good reason for making such an appeal. This is documented for us in the Book of Acts (Chapter 25). But can we apply the example of Paul's appeal more widely, or is it only relevant in circumstances surrounding Paul's ministry? I believe at that time God in His Providence was directing events in St Paul's life, and that he wanted Paul to explain himself and his conversion to further the advance of the Gospel.

How should we think about these things today? On what grounds scripturally and in what situations are christians permitted to stand up for themselves? Under what circumstances is one allowed to file a complaint for instance?

How should we act if we are ever wrongfully accused? How far should we go to have the matter set straight?

How do we avoid taking matters into our own hands and is one permitted to seek redress through compensation agencies - eg. if wrongfully dismissed?

My guess is the Holy Spirit must rule in each situation, and guide.

But are there any general scriptural principles for guidance in this area?

I cannot think of an example of being wrongfully accused where it would be wrong to stand up for oneself or for another. I guess I am wondering what you might be thinking of along those lines.

I believe it is wise for a Christian to have the goal of having the courage to tell others what that Christian believes to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Knowing the truth is the path to being set free. If we tell what we believe to be the truth, we are at worst attempting to point toward that path. If we are mistaken about what the truth is, perhaps we can be corrected by others who are better informed. If we don't tell others what we perceive to be the truth, we cannot even hope to be corrected because no one would know where we needed that correction.

 

[Deidre32]

I think that we should stand up for ourselves, if we are being taken advantage of or abused in any way, whether at work, by family or friends. But, there were times when Jesus didn't always offer words and remained silent in the face of persecution. I've always felt that might be the toughest thing of all, to not feel like you must ''get the last word'' and just walk away if you feel that's best.

 

[jayem]

Of course a Christian should stand his/her ground if being persecuted or treated unjustly purely on account of religious belief. As should a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or any religious believer. And the same applies to an atheist or agnostic.

But our society is multi-religious, and our laws are secular. No one should expect that their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) deserve preferential treatment.