PDA

View Full Version : Wolves, "Sheepdogs," and the Gospel of Leviathan




Anti Federalist
02-16-2015, 12:20 PM
Wolves, "Sheepdogs," and the Gospel of Leviathan

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2015/02/wolves-sheepdogs-and-gospel-of-leviathan.html


We want to live pure, we want to live clean, we want to do our best; sweetly submitting to authority – leaving to God the rest….

From “Obedience,” a children’s song teaching the supposed virtues of “Positive Christianity”


“For I know this -- that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

The Apostle Paul, quoted in Acts 20:29-30


The Rev. Dan Kellogg of Gold Creek Community Church in Mill Creek, Washington wants young people to understand that he is “edgy” – an expression never used by people who warrant the description – and that his rock concert-style worship services appeal to the “young and hip.”

Kellogg and his fellow pastors displayed those traits in a memorably misbegotten rap video produced for “Back to Church Sunday” in 2012.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsbqrHekgBk

A few years earlier, during a six-week series entitled “Permanent Ink,” Kellogg invited a tattoo artist on stage inscribe body art on member of the congregation.

“We actually believe that this represents something that we can apply, something popular in our culture, that we can apply some spiritual truth to,” Kellogg explained to Seattle’s ABC affiliate. “Some people have thought through what they want permanently on their body, and what we want to talk about is what you want permanently on your soul, too.”

The Reverend carefully observes that there are limits to this principle.

“The one you won’t want to on yourself is the `666,’ right?” he prompted the congregation as the tattoo artist did his work.

(Leviticus 19:28 - “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” - AF)

What someone takes into his or her heart is more important than the decorations adorning that person’s skin, according to Rev. Kellogg. This being the case, the pastor should explain why he teaches his congregation to “take the mark” by internalizing a message of submission to Babylon.

During a recent Sunday service described by a congregant as a ceremony of “police worship,” Kellogg led the congregation in a ritual during which each of them raised his hand and recited the following oath:

I pledge to do my best to follow the law.
I pledge to thank a police officer for their [sic] service.
I pledge to call 911 if I see someone suspicious in my neighborhood.
I pledge to watch the back of our officers as they fulfill their duties.
I pledge to pray for the safety of all members of law enforcement.

“They were telling people to basically worship government and worship police no matter what,” the astounded and horrified church visitor told Infowars.com. “No mention of police brutality, no mention of the stingray [covert electronics surveillance] systems grabbing our data….”

The previous week’s service, continued the correspondent, “was military worship where they played clips of American Sniper,” using that exercise in war pornography to instill reverence for the “sheepdogs” blessed by God with a “gift of aggression” and who supposedly use that gift to protect the flock by dispatching “evil-doers.”

This was not the first time Gold Creek Church has performed this liturgy of submission to the State and its armed enforcement caste. An earlier observance of this kind took place in January 2010 following the death of Officer Timothy Brenton, whose family attends Gold Creek. Brenton left behind a wife and two young children, and it was appropriate for the church to conduct a memorial service and extend its love and sympathy to the murdered man’s family.

Rather than doing this, however, Kellogg – dressed in police attire – used the occasion to preach about the supposed virtues of unconditional support for State-anointed dispensers of violence, and to administer “an oath taken by church members to support and assist police, not work against them,” as Seattle’s ABC affiliate KOMO summarized.

Gold Creek Community Church was not the only congregation in Washington State to conduct a ceremony of this kind this year. The Real Life Church in Greenacres sponsored the “Spokane Sheepdog Seminar” on January 31. The speakers at that event –Lt. Col. David Grossman, a retired Army Ranger, and his associates Carl Chinn and Jimmy Meeks– are circuit-riding evangelists for the Homeland Security State who focus their efforts on the Evangelical Christian community.

At each stop on this year’s tour, Grossman and his missionary companions will teach a message that neatly inverts the one preached in the New Testament.

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear,” Paul explained to Timothy, “but of power and of love and of a sound mind.”

Grossman’s “gospel,” by way of contrast, dictates that Christians should consider themselves powerless, embrace the spirit of fear, look with distrust upon those who are not similarly alarmed – and to regard with servile reverence those who are endowed with the divine “gift of aggression.”

“Our enemy is denial,” Grossman insists. “Denial is a big, white, fluffy blanket we pull up over our eyes and pretend the bad men will never come. Denial equals negligence.”

The wolf/sheep/sheepdog taxonomy taught at the dinner table by the cinematic version of Chris Kyle’s father is a nearly verbatim rendering of Grossman’s treatment of the subject.

The on-screen monologue so closely tracks Grossman’s essay that Jason Hall, who is credited (if that’s the proper word) with writing the “American Sniper” screenplay, may be vulnerable to a plagiarism suit.

Owing to his demonstrated prowess at killing people from a distance, the late Chris Kyle is seen as the alpha Sheepdog – but every police officer, according to Grossman and his acolytes, is a member of the same exalted pack. They are thus elevated above the bovine masses who are told to seek their protection.

Yes, both the “wolves” and the “sheepdogs” are capable of horrible violence, but where the latter are concerned Grossman insists that we are not to take counsel of our fears.

Sheepdogs "would no more misuse this gift [of aggression] than a doctor would misuse his healing arts," he maintains, even though Sheepdogs understandably "yearn for the opportunity to use their gift to help others."

Curiously, Paul didn’t mention “aggression” in the inventory of spiritual gifts found in the twelfth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. It’s also impossible to find a parable or a version of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus extolled aggression as a commendable trait, rather than teaching forbearance in the face of provocation. The use of violence in self-defense or in defense of one’s family is compatible with biblical teachings, but this is not “aggression” in any sense.

The first biblical example of the “gift of aggression” is the account of Cain murdering his brother. Significantly, Cain was also the first political figure in the biblical account: After being driven into exile from his family, Cain built a city named after his son, Enoch (Gen. 4:16-17).

Aggression is the antithesis of every Christian virtue, and the indispensable foundation of every political state.

When presenting their concepts to Christian gatherings, Grossman and his comrades – in entirely predictable fashion -- invoke, and misapply, Romans 13:3-4: “Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’ servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

“There is no need to fear authority if one is not engaged in wrong-doing,” insists Jimmy Meeks by way of a dishonest summary of those verses. This puts him in a difficult position regarding the turbulent history of the early Christian Church, which was led by devout men who were well-acquainted with chains and prison bars, and most of whom were “lawfully” put to death for their refusal to obey directives issued in the name of “authority.” There is the additional complication presented by Jesus Himself, Who was “lawfully” executed on a cross while bracketed by common criminals.

Meeks assumes that disobedience to state “authority” and “wrong-doing” are essentially the same thing. One principle clearly taught in the New Testament is that those who follow Jesus can expect to get in trouble with those who presume to rule other human beings – but that this offers no reason to fear what such usurpers can do to them. This is precisely the opposite of the message of unqualified submission to “authority” being peddled by Grossman, Meeks, and their epigones.

“I find it very interesting that in the Bible there are only a few occupations that are said to be `of God,’ that they are jobs that God Himself created and placed upon the earth,” continues Meeks. “One of them is the job of a police officer” – a claim he buttresses with an extravagantly creative rendering of Romans 13:4: “The policeman is sent by God.”

“Could it be any more clear?” Meeks exults. “God is the author of police work…. As police officers we are authorized by God Himself to mete out the necessary justice: make the arrest, give the ticket, even take a life if need be. And God supports us in this matter…. [I]t is an awesome thought to consider that God calls us His `avenger’ who is deputized to execute His judgment.”

Every act of threatened or actual violence committed by a police officer, therefore, carries divine sanction, and those on the receiving end of those ministrations are reprobates worthy of such treatment. Those who obstruct or criticize the State’s divinely appointed ministers of violence are resisting God Himself. They are the “wolves” who must be identified and dealt with; hence the emphasis on teaching the flock to scrutinize the behavior of their neighbors and report any actions or opinions that might undermine this Godly order.

As heaven is my witness, this is not a parody.

“Sheepdog” training doesn’t just focus on the omnipresent threat posed by the “wolves.” It also cultivates disdain for the "sheep."

Jesus taught parables involving the concept of sorting wheat from tares, or sheep from goats. Grossman emphasizes the idea of separating the pitiable and pathetic “sheep” from the valiant and virile “sheepdogs.” One inevitable consequence of this indoctrination is that at least some pastors – men who are supposed to love, serve, and sacrifice on behalf of their flocks – are taught to be contemptuous toward the “sheep” of their fold.

“The vast majority within the church are sheep,” concludes Stuart Vogelman, executive pastor of the Real Life Church, which sponsored the January 31 Sheepdog Seminar. “Pastors tend to be sheep, as well. When it hits the fan, they’ll hide behind the sheepdog.”

This most likely would be the case – at least for those who don’t enjoy the calm courage that comes from knowing the Good Shepherd. Helping people make His acquaintance has traditionally been the chief calling of Christian pastors. At least where matters of church security are concerned, Grossman wants pastors to teach reliance on the sheepdogs, rather than the Shepherd.

At Real Life Church, security personnel are to be chosen from among the “sheepdogs” in the flock. They are given intensive firearms and emergency response training and expected to be vigilant “watchmen” of the church grounds. This much is certainly commendable: Church security personnel are numbered among the large and ever-expanding population of private peace officers, who – unlike their government-employed counterparts – actually protect persons and property. However, Vogelman emphasized, in an emergency the church’s “sheepdogs” must yield to their government-licensed superiors, who have “government-given authority.”

“My team is trained,” Pastor Vogelman explained to me in a telephone interview. “If there’s a police officer [on the scene], he’s in charge. You follow orders from him. We respect them, we defer to them” – even if the private security personnel are more competent in the use of firearms and better-equipped in other ways to deal with an emergency.

“Authority” trumps competence, and preserving the divinely ordained social hierarchy is apparently more important than protecting the flock. This is why, in the event of shooting or similar eruption of violence, Vogelman and his fellow sheepdogs “know that we’ll probably wind up on the ground and handcuffed, along with everybody else, until the officers have sorted out what’s happening.”

Asked about concerns expressed by people who criticize excessive force and other abuses by police, Vogelman replied: “I’m a licensed State Patrol chaplain, and I minister all the time to guys who wear bullet-proof vests. I have some pretty strong views about the subject.” Although he declined to elaborate on those views, he did acknowledge that within his congregation he has heard some criticism “from the sheep” about what they regard as the pastor’s excessive concern regarding security issues.

“Denial really is the most important problem,” Vogelman insisted, retailing Grossman’s central talking point. He likewise reiterated the Sheepdog Seminar claim that violence at churches and church-operated venues is more prevalent than school violence. Sheepdog speaker Carl Chinn calculates that between 1999 and 2014 there were 549 deaths resulting from “deadly force incidents” at houses of worship or congregational facilities. This works out to fewer than 37 such deaths each year from among the more than nine million Americans who attend weekly worship services.

That figure is a little more than one-third the number of Americans who die in automobile-related accidents every day. In empirical terms, Church-focused criminal violence is a manageable problem, not an existential crisis requiring a general mobilization.

Ah, but we have to remember that we’re a nation at war, insists retired police sergeant (and unofficial “Sheepdog” publicist) Joe Gaines: The big picture requires that we “Add in the potential for terror attacks in our schools and churches by foreign extremists, as they have done all over the world….”

Addressing the same point, Meeks tells his audiences that “open source US intelligence” confirms that “al-Qaeda and ISIS are monitoring American church websites for church function dates and particularly church pilgrimage activities.”

Unless we do as our heaven-sent “sheepdogs” require, our church softball leagues will be soft targets for ISIS-directed terrorist attacks. If you consider that threat assessment to be unrealistic, then you’re guilty of the grave sin of “denial.”

Each “Sheepdog Seminar” begins with a screening of the film “Faith Under Fire,” which portrays a horrific 1980 church shooting in Daingerfield, Texas that claimed the lives of five people. Intriguingly, nowhere in any of the “Sheepdog” training materials can we find so much as a syllable devoted to the most hideous church-related “deadly force” incident in recent US history – the 1993 annihilation of the Branch Davidian congregation at Mt. Carmel outside Waco.

David Koresh and his followers were certainly security-conscious. As the ATF learned, the Davidians were more than adequately armed and much more proficient marksmen than the government-licensed killers who attacked the group’s sanctuary.

The church was sufficiently fortified and provisioned to withstand a prolonged siege by the FBI. The pastor and his “sheepdogs” held the enemy at bay for 51 days before being murdered in a chemical weapons attack that led to a catastrophic fire – with Delta Force commandos gunning down anybody who attempted to escape the holocaust.

The Waco atrocity receives no mention in the materials provided by Grossman and his colleagues because it demonstrates the inescapably lupine nature of government-licensed “sheepdog.” Their function is not to act as benign protectors of the “sheep,” but to serve the “thieves and robbers” who corral the flock to be fleeced or slaughtered (John 10:1-10).

Grossman’s “Sheepdog Training” seminars will attract the kind of people who dismiss Koresh and his followers as “cultists” because they didn’t acknowledge the divinity of the State. Whatever else may be true about the Branch Davidians, their worthy defiance placed them in the company of the early Christians who were denounced as atheists and “wrong-doers” – and often put to death in exceptionally sadistic ways -- because they refused to offer a pinch of incense on the altar of Caesar.

“Non-thinking Evangelicals are helping to build the police state even more than the socialists in this country,” laments Dr. Phil Fernandes, President of the Institute of Biblical Defense and pastor of the Trinity Bible Fellowship in Bremerton, Washington.

Assuming that the assessment by Dr. Fernandes is accurate, the turnout for the “Spokane Sheepdog Seminar” is a harbinger of ominous times: The event drew more than 250 people from six states, including Alaska and California. Vogelman proudly reported that this included “thirty to forty cops – federal, state, local, sheriffs and deputies, people from the Department of Homeland Security,” in addition to dozens of church elders, and scores of pastors.

Grossman and his comrades have scheduled seven more seminars this year. At each they will train and equip hundreds of influential people to minister on behalf of the Homeland Security State – strengthening the sinews of Leviathan in the tragically mistaken belief that they are “doing God a service.”

Ronin Truth
02-16-2015, 12:42 PM
The Wolves and the Sheepdogs


THE WOLVES thus addressed the Sheepdogs: "Why should you, who are
like us in so many things, not be entirely of one mind with us,
and live with us as brothers should? We differ from you in one
point only. We live in freedom, but you bow down to and slave
for men, who in return for your services flog you with whips and
put collars on your necks. They make you also guard their sheep,
and while they eat the mutton throw only the bones to you. If
you will be persuaded by us, you will give us the sheep, and we
will enjoy them in common, till we all are surfeited." The Dogs
listened favorably to these proposals, and, entering the den of
the Wolves, they were set upon and torn to pieces.



http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?4&TheWolvesandtheSheepdogs

Anti Federalist
02-16-2015, 01:15 PM
Christian Resistance: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Romans Chapter 13 Revisited

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/07/christian-resistance-resistance-to.html

Jonathan Mayhew (October 8, 1720 – July 9, 1766) was a noted American clergyman and minister at Old West Church, Boston, Massachusetts. He is credited with coining the phrase "no taxation without representation." . . . In politics, Mayhew bitterly opposed the Stamp Act, and urged the necessity of colonial union (or communion) to secure colonial liberties. He was famous, in part, for his 1750 and 1754 Election Sermons espousing American rights—the cause of Liberty and the right and duty to resist tyranny; other famous sermons included "The Snare Broken," 1766. His sermons and writings were a powerful influence in the development of the movement for "Liberty and Independence." The extent of his political feeling can be seen in his Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission, a sermon delivered on the 100th anniversary of the execution of Charles I (January 30, 1649/50). Taking vigorous issue with recent efforts to portray Charles as a martyred monarch, Mayhew began with observations on the antiquity of English liberties. The English constitution, he asserted, “is originally and essentially free.” Roman sources, such as the reliable Tacitus, made it clear that “the ancient Britons … were extremely jealous of their liberties.” England’s monarchs originally held their throne “solely by grant of parliament,” so the ancient English kings ruled “by the voluntary consent of the people.” After forty pages of such historical discourse, Mayhew reached his major point: the essential rightness of the execution of an English king when he too greatly infringed upon British liberties. The vigor of Mayhew’s sermon established his reputation. It was published not only in Boston, but also in London in 1752 and again in 1767. In Boston, John Adams remembered long afterward, Mayhew’s sermon “was read by everybody.” Some would say later that this sermon was the first volley of the American Revolution, setting forth the intellectual and scriptural justification for rebellion against the Crown. In 1765, with the provocation of the Stamp Act fresh, Mayhew delivered another rousing sermon on the virtues of liberty and the iniquity of tyranny. The essence of slavery, he announced, consists in subjection to others—“whether many, few, or but one, it matters not.” The day after his sermon, a Boston mob attacked Chief Justice Thomas Hutchinson’s house, and many thought Mayhew was responsible. -- Wikipedia.




Romans 13 (King James Version)

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

For many Christians throughout history, the above text of Romans 13 has been used to justify inaction against the tyrannies of their day. German Lutheran pastors hid behind it in the time of the Nazis, giving sermons to their congregations that justified submission in the face of Nazi tyranny as "obedience to the Higher Power." Hitler was happy to let them continue preaching.

Other Christians, however, have resisted this interpretation. In American history, Jonathan Mayhew, the man who was the first practicioner of what King George the Third would later dub "The Black Regiment," was one Christian who correctly interpreted Romans 13 not as an excuse for inaction but rather as part of a Christian call to arms.

On 30 Juanuary 1750, Mayhew delivered a sermon "Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers with Some Reflections on the Resistance Made to King Charles I." Its critique of the proper Christian response to tyranny would lay the philosophocal groundwork for the American Revolution. As Peter Kershaw writes:

John Adams called Rev. Mayhew "the morning gun of the Revolution." Adams also dubbed him a "transcendent genius." Robert Treat Paine called Dr. Mayhew, "The Father of Civil and Religious Liberty in Massachusetts and America." No one today should underestimate the significant contribution that the Rev. Jonathan Mayhew made toward the cause of liberty and American independence. Mayhew preached several sermons on Romans 13. The sermon . . . was considered so important that it was printed and widely distributed throughout the American Colonies. Mayhew was also famous for his election sermons (in Mayhew's day it was common for preachers to preach a sermon to the governor and the legislators immediately following an election). The message of Mayhew's sermon challenging passive obedience and non-resistance to all rulers was radical and unmistakable -- the king must repent of his tyrannies or face the consequences of his subjects forcibly throwing off the chains of tyranny. Mayhew's sermon was even sent to the king and the British parliament as a "remonstrance." Mayhew's habit of serving remonstrances on tyrants became a common practice with many other patriot preachers, as well. King George branded these "nonconformist" clergymen as the "Black Regiment" (mocking them for the black robes they wore). Mayhew's sermon resulted in the motto for the American Revolution: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."



Now, again in the 21st Century, we are faced with tyranny rising. And once again timid Christians are seeking cover behind Romans 13. In the essay below, Chuck Baldwin takes up Mayhew's standard.

Like Jonathan Mayhew and Chuck Baldwin, I too have discovered many Christians hiding behind Romans 13 in an effort to avoid their civic duty. It is almost as commonplace as "Christ-is-coming-again-tomorrow-morning-at-10:38-so-don't-bother-me-while-I-get-my soul-in-order" excuse. Almost.

My thanks to Armdcav, Jackie J. and others who brought this to my attention, so I can bring it to yours.

Mike
III



Romans Chapter 13 Revisited
by Chuck Baldwin
July 15, 2009

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America's political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).

The apostle clearly states that civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that, in America, the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html )

As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore--and blatantly disobey--the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

Ronin Truth
02-16-2015, 01:28 PM
Romans 13, 1 Peter, and the Proper Relationship Between the Christian and the State

Romans 13 and 1 Peter both address the relationship between Christians and human governmental authorities. While these passages are usually interpreted as "pro-government," an examination of these works by Paul and Peter, respectively, will reveal the true role human governments serve in God's divine providence, and how Christians should regard such governments.

Romans 13 and Human Government

Romans 13 is a very difficult passage to evaluate. In this portion of his letter to the church in Rome, Paul instructed Christians on the relationship between them and the Roman governmental authorities. At first glance, the passage seems to legitimize and support the actions of human governments. Elsewhere, Paul advised Christians to “study diligently to show yourself approved unto God…” (2 Timothy 2:15), and contrary to any potential first glance interpretation, the true meaning of this deceptive passage becomes clear after a brief study of the issue. The passage in question reads as follows:

Romans 13:1-10: Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God... For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.
As shown in Human Government is a Rejection of God (https://web.archive.org/web/20080809052328/http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/israelking.html) and Satan is in Control of Human Governments (https://web.archive.org/web/20080809052328/http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html), the Old Testament explains how human governments are a rejection of God’s government, and the New Testament often portrays human governments as under the control and influence of Satan (if these articles have not been read, it is advised to read them before proceeding).
If human governments are a rejection of God, and are controlled by the influence of Satan, why then does Paul refer to rulers as "God’s minister"? Furthermore, when Paul wrote his letter to the church in Rome, Nero had already become emperor. It is difficult to imagine Nero, who undertook a massive persecution of Christians throughout the empire, as "God’s minister." Paul certainly knew of the story of Jesus’ birth. How could Herod, the ruler who attempted to murder young Jesus, be "God’s minister"?

Paul also states that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.” The simple interpretation of this statement cannot be true. Paul himself was terrorized by the “governing authorities.” While in Damascus, the governor under King Aretas had the walls of the city guarded in order to arrest the apostle. In order to escape from the city, Paul had to sneak out a window in one of the city’s walls, being lowered to the ground in a basket. Paul also had to flee from authorities in Iconium and Thessalonica. In Caesarea, Paul was arrested for spreading Christian ideas, and was imprisoned for two years. Eventually, Paul met a martyr’s death when he was executed by Roman authorities. Certainly, then, these authorities were a terror to Paul’s good works.

If the Roman government persecuted Christians so ruthlessly, in what sense was it "appointed by God"? In what sense were Roman authorities "God’s ministers"? And in what sense are Christians to be "subject" to these "authorities"? The answers to these questions reveal the true message behind Paul’s letter to Rome.

Government as God’s Minister, Appointed by God

Romans 13 tells us that “there is no authority except from God.” Of course this is true. Even Satan’s authority comes from God. In order for Satan to exercise his power, even he needs the permission of God. Demonstrative of this is the story of Job. Satan desired to persecute Job, but had to ask God’s permission to do so, and God granted it. Does this mean that the persecution of Job was morally right? No, it was wrong. Satan used his power and authority, given to him by God, to persecute Job. God did not morally approve of this persecution, but allowed it to occur, because it was in line with his divine plan. God wanted Job’s faith to be tested, so God gave Satan the authority to persecute him. In other words, God “appointed” Satan to persecute Job. This does not mean that Job’s persecution was “good,” but just in line with God’s divine plan.

Throughout the Old Testament, there are numerous occurrences where this theme is extended to human governments. Although these governments are performing brutish acts, persecuting God’s people, in every instance they are described as God’s “servant” or some other term, showing that they were appointed by God to perform such violent acts.

The Egyptian Pharaoh was Appointed by God

In Exodus chapter 9, God gives the following message to the Egyptian Pharaoh:

Exodus 9:16-17: For this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show my power in you, and that my name may be declared in all the earth.

Even the Pharaoh, the ultimate villain in the Exodus story, was raised up by God. The Pharaoh in no way was consciously performing the will of God. No, the Pharaoh persecuted and enslaved the Hebrew people, but yet, in God’s divine plan, he allowed the Pharaoh to commit such acts because it led to the ultimate good of the Hebrew people, their exodus. Certainly, however, Moses was justified in challenging the Pharaoh, even though the Pharaoh was “raised up” by God. God used the Pharaoh as an instrument in his plan, but right and wrong never changes. The Pharaoh’s role was to commit such wrong actions, but it was also the role of all “good” people to condemn those same wrong actions. Just because the Pharaoh was appointed by God does not imply that his actions were justified.

The Monarch of Assyria was Appointed by God

In Isaiah chapter 10, the monarch of Assyria was described in the same fashion as the Egyptian Pharaoh:

Isaiah 10:5-7,12: Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets. But this is not what the Assyrian intends, this is not what he has in mind; his purpose is to destroy… When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, "I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.”

In this passage, the violent Assyrian monarch is described as the rod of God’s anger. God used the Assyrian government to punish the hypocritical and ungodly nation of Israel. The Assyrian government was “appointed” to perform a number of cruel functions: “to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample (Israel) down like mud in the streets.” This does not mean that the Assyrian monarch was conscious of all this: “But this is not what the Assyrian intends, this is not what he has in mind.”

Instead, the Assyrian monarch acted in his own arrogant and violent manner: “his purpose is to destroy.” The monarch was an evil person, performing evil actions, who was going to be punished for such actions: “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.” God’s will always prevails. Through his divine providence, God is able to find a way to use the evil of the Assyrian government to his purposes. In Romans 13 Paul writes that human authorities are appointed “for good.” Of course God’s will is always good. In this sense, the Assyrian government performed its evil deeds, for the ultimate good of God’s people. The Israel nation had become hypocritical and ungodly, therefore it needed correction. God used the evil Assyrian government for this purpose, doing good for the Israel nation by attempting to bring it back to God. Further using the language of Romans 13, the Assyrian government can be described as a terror to evil works: the evil works of the fallen Israel nation. Lastly, just as with the Pharaoh, although God was able to use the violence of Assyria to his ultimate purpose, this violence was not justified. All godly people of the day should have condemned the violence, and certainly should not have supported it or taken part in it.

King Nebuchadnezzar was Appointed by God

Jeremiah 25:8-12: "Because you have not listened to my words, I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon," declares the Lord, "and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin… This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their guilt…"

Along with this passage, two other times in the book of Jeremiah Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as God’s "servant" (27:6 and 43:10). This is strikingly similar language to Romans 13 where government authorities are described as God’s “ministers.”

This is the same Nebuchadnezzar who created the golden idol, and threw Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego into the furnace for not worshiping it. How can such a man be God’s servant? In exactly the same sense that God used the Pharaoh and the monarch of Assyria. Because Israel had not listened to God, Nebuchadnezzar, like the monarch of Assyria, was used as an instrument of God’s wrath for the purposes of punishing Israel. This does not morally justify the actions of Nebuchadnezzar. His actions were wrong, and when his purpose in God’s plan had been fulfilled, God declared that he would “punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their guilt.” Therefore, describing Nebuchadnezzar as God’s servant does not mean that his actions were morally just. It only means that his sinful actions were used by God, to the fulfillment of God’s divine plan.

Human Government Appointed by God, as Explained in Romans 13

As we have seen, the Pharaoh, the Assyrian monarch, and King Nebuchadnezzar were all “appointed” by God, for the fulfillment of God’s plan. In all three instances, these governmental leaders were used as an instrument of God’s vengeance. These leaders performed cruel and sinful acts, but God was able to use them for his ultimate purpose. When Romans 13 is read in relation to Romans 12, it becomes clear that the governing authorities Paul writes of serve this same purpose. Romans 12 concludes as follows:

Romans 12:17-21: Do not repay anyone evil for evil… live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink…” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

In line with the teachings of Jesus (please read The New Testament Promotes the Absolute Love of Enemies (https://web.archive.org/web/20080809052328/http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/loveenemies.html)), Paul instructed Christians to show love to their enemies. One should live at peace with all, and if wronged, should not seek vengeance, because vengeance is the Lord’s. How, then, does God exercise this vengeance that is his alone? As shown above, Paul answers this question in Romans 13:

Romans 13:4: …But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Just as the Pharaoh, the Assyrian monarch, and King Nebuchadnezzar were described, here all human governments are described in similar terms. These governments serve as God’s “avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” Christians, on the other hand, are called upon to love their enemies and “not take revenge.” Human governments have rebelled against this divine concept. Rather than allowing this rebellion against his will to ruin his plan, God is able to use this rebellion for the fulfillment of his divine plan. Paul’s writing simply declares that divine providence overrides human rebellion against godly ways, it does not approve of such rebellion. Just as the Pharaoh, the Assyrian monarch, and King Nebuchadnezzar were to be punished for the dreadful acts, so to will all human governments. The exact details of God’s divine plan will never be completely known. All good Christians can do is to have faith in his will, and follow the instructions given through Jesus and the apostles. We have been instructed to love our enemies, not take revenge, leave vengeance with God, and overcome evil with good. Sometimes it might be difficult to follow these commandments, but we must have the attitude of Jesus on the eve of his crucifixion:

Matthew 26:39: …not as I will, but as You will.

If it is God’s will that we leave vengeance to him, and show our enemies nothing but love, then we must. If those involved with human governments wish to ignore his will, then we must have nothing to do with it. We must not take part in it or give it our support. Paul gives a specific example of this in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 when he instructs Christians not to take their brothers before the courts, which he described as “the unrighteous” and “the unbelievers,” but instructs them to solve matters peacefully among themselves. This passage is fully examined in Should Christians Take Part in Courts of Law? (https://web.archive.org/web/20080809052328/http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/courts.html) We are not to have anything to do with human governments, but we must, as Paul instructs, be “subject” to them.

In What Sense Should Christians be “Subject” to Human Government?

By instructing Christians to be “subject” to the state, Paul certainly could not have meant unconditional obedience. In Matthew chapter 6, Jesus states the following:

Matthew 6:24: No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other…

Christians owe absolute obedience to God. God is our master; we cannot serve another. If unconditional obedience is required from both God and the state, then Christians indeed have two masters. If the demands of the state were to contradict the teachings of Jesus, then Christians would then be forced to choose which master they served. Unconditional obedience cannot be given to both God and the state, and given the choice, of course it must be given to God.

As stated earlier, Paul constantly disobeyed governing authorities, and, because of this, he was constantly on the run. In Caesarea he was finally caught, imprisoned for two years, and eventually executed.

Paul was not the only one to disobey authorities. Acts 4-5 tells the story of the arrest of Peter and John, and their disregard of human laws. Both apostles were imprisoned by local authorities for preaching in the name of Jesus, which they had been explicitly instructed not to do. The two apostles broke out of jail, and began preaching once again. When the authorities found Peter and John, they asked:

Acts 5:28: …Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name?

The apostles, who had directly disobeyed the order given to them, answered as follows:

Acts 5:29: We ought to obey God rather than men.

The entire book of Acts, as well as the other writings in the New Testament, tells the story of how Paul, Peter, John, and the other apostles were constantly rebelling and disobeying the Roman government and local governing authorities. They were persecuted, imprisoned, and most faced a martyr’s death.

Realizing that “subject” must not mean unconditional obedience, because we have already given this to God, in what manner are we then to be “subject” to the state? One of the most common definitions of “subject” is “being in a position that places one under the power or authority of another.” In a very real sense, someone can be subject to someone else while taking part in disobedience.

As noted above, Peter, John, Paul, the other apostles, as well as Jesus himself all disregarded and disobeyed governing authorities. Yet, while disobeying, they were still under the power and authority of these human governments. Being called upon to love their enemies, violent resistance was not an option. This non-violent message was of great importance to Roman Christians. Many of the Christians in Rome were of Jewish nationality. Jews throughout the Roman Empire, having suffered centuries of persecution, were continually on the threshold of violent rebellion. In Rome, the heart of the Empire, the potential for violent disturbances certainly was great. In addition, it was approximately at this time that the Roman Emperor Nero began his immense persecution of Christians within the Empire. With this in mind, it becomes perfectly clear why Paul would urge Roman Christians to be “subject” to the governing authorities. Rather than violently opposing the government, Paul instructed these Christians to subject themselves to the persecution they were suffering. Throughout the New Testament are instances where the apostles, following Jesus' lead, set the example for later Christians regarding subjection to persecution, leading to their martyrdom. Jesus predicted this type of subjection to persecution numerous times throughout the Gospels:

Mark 13:9-13: You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them… All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
John 15:18-20: If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world… That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: “No servant is greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also…

John 16:2-4: They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you…

If Christians were obedient to governing authorities, there would be no reason for this persecution. Instead, Christians will often find it necessary to disobey human governments. When the governing authorities do persecute Christians, Paul advised them to be subject to these enemies. Show them love, try to convert them, but if this fails, willfully accept any punishment received, as did Jesus, Peter, John, Paul, and the other apostles. Once again, as examined above, Paul outlined the proper conduct of Christians in Romans 12:

Romans 12:17-21: Do not repay anyone evil for evil… live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink…” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

One last point concerning the term "subject": Paul urged Christians to be subject in a number of instances. One of these instances is slaves to their masters:

Titus 2:9: Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them.

This certainly does not justify slavery or the actions of any slave-owner. Just as this does not justify slavery, Romans 13 does not justify government. Slavery was an issue which Christians of the day had to deal with. Any slave who was converted to Christianity had to then answer to his master. In the passage above, Paul intended to persuade Christian slaves not to resort to violence. Realizing the immorality of slavery, it must have been tempting for slaves to fight for their freedom. The Christian religion, however, forbids this. Instead, just as with the Christian relation to governmental rulers, the slaves were instructed to show their masters love, try to convert them, and if their Christianity forces them to disobey their masters, they then must willfully accept their punishment. In short, as Paul worded it, Christian slaves must be subject to their masters.

1 Peter 2 and Human Government

In 1 Peter, the apostle Peter wrote a passage similar to Paul’s message to the Roman church:

1 Peter 2:13-14: Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong…

It must first be remembered that Peter, like Paul, constantly disobeyed the “governing authorities.” As stated above, it was Peter who, when asked why he defied the orders given to him, declared:

Acts 5:29: We ought to obey God rather than men.

In 1 Peter, Peter urged submission in the same context in which Paul did in Romans 13: submission to persecution. There is no doubt about it, Peter was writing to a persecuted church; he made this very clear.

1 Peter 1:6: In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

1 Peter 4:12: Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.

1 Peter 5:8-9: ...Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.

Peter advised this persecuted church to meet the evil they were facing with good, echoing Paul’s instructions to the church at Rome. A few verses before Peter’s call for submission, he wrote the following:

1 Peter 2:11-12: Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

It can be said that Peter cared about the image of the Christians under persecution. Although they were being persecuted, Peter wanted the “pagans” to see the good deeds of the Christians. This is a practical suggestion of how Christians, as Paul worded it in Romans 12, can “overcome evil with good.”

Following Peter’s call for submission in verses 13-14, he provided the reason for such submission in verses 15-16:

1 Peter 2:15-16: For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.

Peter wrote that Christians should submit themselves to governmental institutions, because if they were to violently resist, then the government would have reason to persecute them. Instead, if Christians are to do only good, the government will have no reason to persecute them. By living good lives, not using “your freedom as a cover-up for evil,” the hypocrisy of the government will be shown, and the church will “silence the ignorant talk of foolish men" (please note, Peter here referred to governmental leaders as ignorant and foolish men).

Rather than violently resisting such persecution, Christians must submit and suffer. What is inferred from Romans 12 and 13, Peter clearly explained:

1 Peter 2:19-23: For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ...When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats…

1 Peter 3:13-17: Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed… It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

1 Peter 4:1,12-19: Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude… Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering… But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed… If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal… However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name… Those who suffer according to God's will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.

Conclusion

In conclusion, rather than serving as a divine justification for the existence of human government, both Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 serve as a practical guide as to how Christians should relate to the governmental authorities around them. We are told that government is God’s tool for vengeance. The problem for the Christian today is not necessarily with government per se. The problem lies with the Christian support for government, or in other words, the Christian support for vengeance. Paul instructed the church to have nothing to do with vengeance. Therefore, we should have nothing to do with government. Moses did not help the Pharaoh enslave the Hebrews. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego did not help Nebuchadnezzar enforce his idolatrous policies. Likewise, Christians should not take part in the state by holding office, nor should they give their consent or approval to the state through voting. Ignore the state; put all effort towards leading quiet lives in conformity with the teachings of Jesus (as Peter wrote). By doing this, hopefully evil will be overcome with good (as Paul wrote) and there will be no place for governmental vengeance. If this fails, however, rejoice in the fact that any suffering one is forced to endure will be suffering for doing good, just as Christ experienced (as Peter wrote). This is the Christian’s proper role in relation to human governmental authorities.

//

Anti Federalist
02-16-2015, 01:48 PM
Paul also states that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.” The simple interpretation of this statement cannot be true. Paul himself was terrorized by the “governing authorities.” While in Damascus, the governor under King Aretas had the walls of the city guarded in order to arrest the apostle. In order to escape from the city, Paul had to sneak out a window in one of the city’s walls, being lowered to the ground in a basket. Paul also had to flee from authorities in Iconium and Thessalonica. In Caesarea, Paul was arrested for spreading Christian ideas, and was imprisoned for two years. Eventually, Paul met a martyr’s death when he was executed by Roman authorities. Certainly, then, these authorities were a terror to Paul’s good works.

Unless Paul was, as some disciples suspected, a hypocrite and a Roman mole.

Ronin Truth
02-16-2015, 02:08 PM
Unless Paul was, as some disciples suspected, a hypocrite and a Roman mole.

"All the good in Christianity can be traced to Jesus, all the bad to Paul." - Franz Overbeck, Protestant Theologian

tod evans
02-16-2015, 02:50 PM
I pledge to do my best to follow the law.
I pledge to thank a police officer for their [sic] service.
I pledge to call 911 if I see someone suspicious in my neighborhood.
I pledge to watch the back of our officers as they fulfill their duties.
I pledge to pray for the safety of all members of law enforcement.

And he does rap....



Kellogg and his fellow pastors displayed those traits in a memorably misbegotten rap video produced for “Back to Church Sunday” in 2012.

Rip his head off and fuck him in the neck....

Anti Federalist
02-16-2015, 03:15 PM
And he does rap....

Rip his head off and fuck him in the neck....

This goes right here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQUlr4Xc3s

tod evans
02-16-2015, 03:17 PM
I don't know what's worse, that BS or the fat chicks at Wal-Mart........

Ronin Truth
02-16-2015, 03:21 PM
I don't know what's worse, that BS or the fat chicks at Wal-Mart........

Well, at least the BS doesn't burn a permanent image into my mind. :p :eek:

tod evans
02-16-2015, 03:22 PM
Well, at least the BS doesn't burn a permanent image into my mind. :p :eek:

Have you tried watching that? :eek:

Ronin Truth
02-16-2015, 03:30 PM
Have you tried watching that? :eek:


Children and sheeple need leaders.

A Son of Liberty
02-16-2015, 05:06 PM
They have a fairly high opinion of themselves...

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/5a/dd/45/5add45d0abf88e91a5dcccf269e834f8.jpg

Mach
02-16-2015, 06:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q19qRUBj-ic


---------



You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HxHwuiDPgk

jonhowe
02-16-2015, 06:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6HdRVKXqNg

idiom
02-17-2015, 03:37 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6HdRVKXqNg

Oh snap! Quigley's village. Ah the memories.

paleocon1
02-17-2015, 09:47 AM
Dig far enough into this 'pastor's' past and you will find a CIA affiliation.

Anti Federalist
02-17-2015, 10:24 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz5jIxzneMA

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air

You better watch out
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Jordan, and I have seen
Things are not what they seem

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel

What a surprise
A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is no bad dream

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by
With bright knives He releaseth my soul
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places
He converteth me to lamb cutlets

For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger
When cometh the day we lowly ones
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water

Bleating and babbling we fell on his neck with a scream
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream

Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead
You better stay home and do as you're told
Get out of the road if you want to grow old

sylcfh
02-17-2015, 01:30 PM
http://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/10945707_10153006996520365_1302089382647179664_o-568x320.jpg

phill4paul
02-17-2015, 02:02 PM
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."