Should We All Submit to the Government?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinc1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VeritasLuxMea said:
So, theoretically, if every government required us to sin against God (e.g., murder), then would we have to disobey all governments?
Click to expand...
We would only disobey the parts that requires us to sin. If I was a doctor and the government required me to abort babies, I would not obey the government.
 
Zekariya said:
We would only disobey the parts that requires us to sin. If I was a doctor and the government required me to abort babies, I would not obey the government.
Click to expand...
One could argue that this is a form of “Give to caesar what is caesar’s; give to God what is God’s.”
 
Did anyone hear the readings for today?

Deutoronomy 26:

6 The Egyptians ill-treated us, they oppressed us and inflicted harsh slavery on us.

7 But we called on Yahweh, God of our ancestors. Yahweh heard our voice and saw our misery, our toil and our oppression;

8 and Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with mighty hand and outstretched arm, with great terror, and with signs and wonders.

9 He brought us here and has given us this country, a country flowing with milk and honey.

10 Hence, I now bring the first-fruits of the soil that you, Yahweh, have given me." 'You will then lay them before Yahweh your God, and prostrate yourself in the presence of Yahweh your God.
 
Zekariya said:
That is the point. We are to obey the government except when the government requires us to sin against God. 🙂
Click to expand...
But even then, according to the Bible and not to my own beliefs, we should not rebel against the government in a violent overthrow, only refuse form performing the act that violates God’s law.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
So, theoretically, if every government required us to sin against God (e.g., murder), then would we have to disobey all governments?
Click to expand...
Yes. But not overthrow them, only refuse from committing the act, at least according to the Bible.
 
PazzoGrande said:
One could argue that this is a form of “Give to caesar what is caesar’s; give to God what is God’s.”
Click to expand...
I think this is a little bit of a stretch, but I agree it is in the same ballpark, but I don’t believe the implications of the statements are the same.
 
Part of the response to the question also hinges on the cultural heritage of the “region”.

If an area is accustomed to a monarchy, for example, or to some form of “dictatorship”, then they are open to powerful central government.

Whereas, the United States was set up in reaction against big government.
 
Europe originally was a bunch of small “city-states” or tribes which were conquered and consolidated into things like the Roman Empire. And then set loose when after hundreds of years, one empire or another broke up.

[And later, the “Soviet Union”.]

The city-states were almost continuously at war with one another.

That form of government had a major difficulty in uniting for a common goal.

Almost the only time they were able to come together was to unite for the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.

But other than that, they provided almost no opposition to the invasions from Arabia that conquered the Holy Land, and all of Christian North Africa … and across into Spain by AD711 … and RAPIDLY all the way up into France where they were stopped at the Battle of Tours in AD 732.

Even so, it was not until AD1492 that the Moors were expelled and sent back to North Africa.

After which, we had the Corsairs that terrorized the Mediterranean Sea and the coastal cities of Europe until the mid-1800’s.

Meanwhile, there were dozens of Mongol conquests.

And Swedish conquests.

Large national governments such as “united” Italy … often not only did not eliminate war, but also transformed war from small regional conflicts into a horror of horrors: World War.

War almost seems like the “natural order of things” … Buy a copy of “Dictionary of Wars” by George C. Kohn for your reference shelf. It lists and describes hundreds of wars.

So … why should be want to submit to the Government?
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Europe originally was a bunch of small “city-states” or tribes which were conquered and consolidated into things like the Roman Empire. And then set loose when after hundreds of years, one empire or another broke up.

[And later, the “Soviet Union”.]

The city-states were almost continuously at war with one another.

That form of government had a major difficulty in uniting for a common goal.

Almost the only time they were able to come together was to unite for the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.

But other than that, they provided almost no opposition to the invasions from Arabia that conquered the Holy Land, and all of Christian North Africa … and across into Spain by AD711 … and RAPIDLY all the way up into France where they were stopped at the Battle of Tours in AD 732.

Even so, it was not until AD1492 that the Moors were expelled and sent back to North Africa.

After which, we had the Corsairs that terrorized the Mediterranean Sea and the coastal cities of Europe until the mid-1800’s.

Meanwhile, there were dozens of Mongol conquests.

And Swedish conquests.

Large national governments such as “united” Italy … often not only did not eliminate war, but also transformed war from small regional conflicts into a horror of horrors: World War.

War almost seems like the “natural order of things” … Buy a copy of “Dictionary of Wars” by George C. Kohn for your reference shelf. It lists and describes hundreds of wars.

So … why should be want to submit to the Government?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what Europe has to do with Paul’s letter, which really had very little to do with Europe at all, Eurasia certainly, but not Europe.

I do understand your point (I think), but the reality is that while I am a VERY big believer in reading Paul’s letters in context (or at least trying to), I am not so sure Paul meant this to apply only to a particular region, as is probably the case regarding women covering their heads etc. I do think Paul meant what he said to apply to everyone, especially since the world was covered with tyrannical governments in the time of Paul anyway, so who exactly wouldn’t apply in this conversation given the context?

Again, this does not mean I agree with Paul. I think this passage presents a good reason for treating Paul’s writings differently than the Gospel accounts. I know saying such a thing is really quite the opposite of the vast majority of Christian teachings over the course of history, but how can anyone possibly square this away?

I often wonder if Paul thought everything he wrote would qualify as scripture or absolutely true for all-time, or if he just thought some of it was and other parts of Paul’s writings were essentially written in the same way the Pope may write something today that is authoritative but not eternally true or required in the same way other aspects of the faith are. For instance, masses were always said in Latin for a very long time in Catholic churches around the world…But this was changed obviously…While it was in effect, however, it was authoritative, but now it clearly isn’t. I think most people agree when Paul said women should cover their heads or be silent in Church, Paul was speaking in similar terms to the situation I just described. However, very few Christians today would apply the same logic to many of the other teachings of Paul, including homosexuality and the passage about the government being an agent of God noted in the original post.

I am not saying everything Paul said should be treated the same way we treat women wearing head coverings, or even that homosexuality or some of the other more controversial (recently so) passages in Paul’s writings. I am saying though that virtually no denomination I am aware of ACTUALLY does everything that is literally written in Paul’s letters. I have been to numerous evangelical churches who profess their churches to abide by the strict writings in the Bible. Yet, these same churches allow women to speak and do not require head coverings. Everyone seems to be picking and choosing what they believe is authoritative from Paul and what isn’t. This is one of the most difficult aspects of Christianity for me. How can we profess to say the Bible is God’s inspiration to man but then only listen to some of it? I am fine settling on the idea that Paul’s writings are not all meant to be read the same way sayings of Jesus are, but almost every church out there, especially those with good theological positions in other areas, assert that the New Testament, including Paul’s writings, are essential “God-breathed” scriptures, yet they don’t follow it strictly.

For Catholics, the Church acts as an infallible source of truth so they don’t have to worry or think about it (assuming the Church is in fact infallible), but for everyone who rejects infallibility or isn’t Catholic, these issues become virtually impossible to solve.
 
Has anyone found an official Church response to this passage specifically?
 
A lot of John’s writing and traveling dealt extensively with communities that were, at the time, in what is now Turkey.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
A lot of John’s writing and traveling dealt extensively with communities that were, at the time, in what is now Turkey.
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why I said “Eurasia.” What we think of as Europe, i.e. France, Germany, etc. are what I am referencing.
 
There are certain areas where the Church sets out the moral teaching, the “rules,” so to speak, and then the application of these rules is left up to the people who are in the situation, hopefully after prayer and possibly counsel from wise and holy Catholics.

Now we tend to be very alert, because we have seen how quickly a good situation can turn bad.

But overall, the point of the teachings regarding the morality of war and civil uprising are in place to protect the regular people. We must be cery careful when we consider starting a revolution which will cause disorder and great danger for the civilian population. Unfortunately, some of the applications of the teaching can seem to leave people at the mercy of a bullying government, as when the government kills people randomly because some are suspected of committing an act of rebellion.

Another thing to consider is that when we think of civil uprisings, we tend to lump them all together. So a rebellion against a government imposition of forced abortion would be thought of together with a civil rebellion against a prohibition on abortion.
 
The French Revolution did not work out so well … at least for the Catholic Church.
 
jinc1019 said:
How should Catholics interpret this?
Click to expand...
There were no Democracies in Paul’s time. In a Democracy such as ours, tithe State is subordinate to the people, not the other way around. So it is the people that are sovereign and it is the government which must answer to the citizens.

So, to be obedient to that passage in Romans, government officials must submit to those whom they are supposed to serve.
 
Could we not assume that Paul is speaking idealistically? That is, if the government is acting in accordance with Divine law, we should submit. Verse seven tells me that I will offer taxes, revenue, honor an respect only if it is deserved.
 
Zekariya said:
We are to submit to the government so as long as the government doesn’t require us to sin against God.
Click to expand...
But what if we have a government that, while not requiring us personally to sin against God, does great harm, through its policies great harm to the weakest in our society while protecting the rich and powerful? What is we have a government that actively promotes a secular agenda, seeks to marginalise religion and legislates to push it out of public life? What if we have a government that promotes abortion and seeks to destroy the institution of marriage? What if we have a government that promotes gambling and does nothing to attempt to stem the flow of pornography even though it is freely available to children?

Are we really to believe that such governments have a mandate from God? Are we really to submit to these governments?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top