To Hell With Romans 13

Brian Walsh has posted an outstanding reflection on Romans 13.

Let me put my cards on the table right from the outset. I am sick and tired of hearing Christians who have something at stake in the status quo of economic, social and political systems of injustice appealing to Romans 13 to legitimate unswerving obedience to oppressive and deceitful regimes.

I speak a fair bit in the US and whenever I am addressing the question of the meaning of the gospel for our political lives someone invariably asks, “yes, but what about Romans 13?”

What about it? I reply.

Read the rest here.

Comments

[wilsonian]

Wow!

[David Todd]

I am with yuh Mike and will be the first to support you in your apparent shocking bit of heresy. Indeed, dealing with my point, which flows from your's, the sanctimonius ones may take offence at your heading and that IS my very point. I have been bothered consuderably by Paul's comment (at least as made in the esteemed KJV. and accepted by many) in 1 Thess 5:22 where he is made to say: "Abstain from every appearance of evil." Yeh? Look at the Saviour's social life! Even allowing for the rationale of cultural context (which few get), the briefest glance at the life of Jesus in his acceptance of drunks, prostitutes, and tax-rogues contradicts Paul. And let's not go into his put-down of women in Timothy! Or slaves. Guess it back's up Bruxy's point.....To Hell with much of religion as found in Christianity.
DT

[Rick]

So those who would disagree with Walsh's exaggerated and inflated reasoning to abandon Romans 13 are the ones who are sanctimonious?

Seriously?

[David Todd]

My point is simple and one that I have with sadness witnessed over many years of inter-denominational contact.Springing from this aspect of Pauline theology, I have known Christians, who, to avoid contamination, back away from gays, smokers, and, in earlier days, those who, God forgive them, actually went to movies. (Or in one sad experienceI had, those who dont read only the Darby edition of the bible). As a young Christian it puzzled me, now it angers me and reminds me of Jesus and his concern (Matt 23:27) about looking good on the outside. If I have to make a choice I will go with the Master and his concern about the danger of a phony externalism. So if I put aside Romans 13, the answer is to get with 1 Cor 13 and its single point. As one author put it, we should "stay close to the door," not shut it on those who hesitantly approach it.DT

[george]

Did Jesus want for the sinners to stay in their sinful state? Did He tolerate their sin, was that ok with Him?

I love how He hung out with them, but did He want them to stay that way or did He want to see their lives transformed?

Why did He go to the cross again?

Would it be loving for a doctor who knows what your terminal illness is, not to tell you about that? You go see him, he finds out you got terminal cancer but doesn't tell you. Would you be good with a doctor like that. Probably not eh? You'd kind of want to hear the truth about that wouldn't you?

When it comes to the ways of God isn't there a responsibility on Christians to tell people the whole truth? God loves them absolutely, but He's also just, right? He also won't tolerate sin right, He hates it doesn't He? Didn't God the Father send His Son into the world to die on the cross for our sin. How loving is it if we don't tell people that the penalty of their sin will be death, eternal separation from God, if they refuse to turn to Jesus Christ for forgiveness? If we ourselves have been forgiven and set free by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, how would it be loving if we didn't tell people the truth about sin and how it separates us from God?

Is the Bible only authoritative where we want it to be, or is authoritative in its entirety?

1 Corinthians 13 is a great passage, as is Romans 13. Both are found in God's Word and both are binding. Does 1 Cor 13 say anywhere that Love tolerates sin. No apparently not, take a look at verse 6:
"it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth."

And ok, I'll be the first to say it, the title is absolutely disgusting and profane, coming from a professing follower of Jesus Christ. It's a disgrace.

[Mike]

George - I think you caught the profanity but missed the point.

[sonja]

Ermmm ... I don't get the profanity in the title? Hell is a place (metaphorically), just as heaven is. Proclaiming that we must never say that word, is like saying we must never say the names of certain body parts, like breast or penis. It may be argued that the title of this post is blasphemy or heresy, but I'd be hard pressed to call it profanity.

I'm a little bit amused by the response to Walsh's questioning of a treasured knee-jerk response in much of Christendom. I read his whole piece. It's quite well reasoned and not to be taken lightly. Christians have long been accustomed to using the Bible to their own ends, much like statisticians. Picking and choosing which verses they'll use to back which behaviours they'd like at the time. Empire has counted on the Church for support since the time of Constantine. The Church has manipulated its flock since then as well. When we begin to think for ourselves, why then, who knows what might happen?

[David Todd]

MIKE: Interesting comments from Sonia-as to the Rick/George stuff, and as a Scots/Canadian all I would add at this point is: Il n'y a plus rien a dire. Keep up the good work! It sure is needed.
Bubba.

[george]

Hey Mr. Todd, I'd be interested in hearing you out on what you believe is wrong with the clearly opposite views I have from Mike (and I'm assuming you)on what it is to be a Christian.

And Mike, getting back to your other post on the rich guy I'm wondering if you might ever consider answering the questions I ask you.

I find it interesting, this dialogue with you. It's clearly one-sided as you refuse to answer questions but it really does speak to the huge differences you and I have.

It comes down to an understanding of what the Gospel is. My understanding is so clearly different from yours, if you believe I am so wrong, why is it that you won't engage me? I truly don't understand that.

When I ask you questions about reaching out to the Faiths and Wes' of the world you clam up, won't answer. Why is that?

See, I believe the reason is that you do not have a message of hope for people like that. You want to help them out with practical things and you want to do that as a professing Christian, but you have no message for them, no hope. If you do, and I'm not getting it, please enlighten me, but I have not read that anywhere.

You profess to be a Christan, for sure a totally different kind of Christian than I profess to be, but I truly wonder why you cannot answer those questions.

You say this in your post about the rich guy: "First, I guess I should insert my usual disclaimer. I don't think this is about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Its about who enters, or participates, in the kingdom of God.)

If you won't answer any of my other questions, answer me just these in relation to that statement and state your authority:
- how does one participate in the kingdom of God?
- how does one enter the kingdom of God?

I appreciate your consideration to these and the other questions I have for you and especially what your message of hope would be to the Faith's and Wes' of the world.

Thanks

[Mike]

George - I've spent the last several years (and will spend the rest of it) working out the answers to your questions, and writing about it here and elsewhere. If the answers or not in a form that you can see, well I'm sorry about that. Life is too short to argue with you over this stuff.

So to put it in binary language for you so I can be as clear as possible: No. I will not answer every question you throw at me. And you're right, the dialogue is kind of one sided. But then again, you're in my living room, so the advantage goes to me. And keep your feet off the furniture.

[george]

Mike, its been interesting again. It's all part of the journey for me at this point in my life. There's a lot of stuff and noise out here on the internet, in blog world.

I was saying to someone recently how I've learned from these interactions with guys like yourself who I have such huge differences with.

I hope and pray you come up with some answers because they really are there and then you can offer hope to folks like Faith and Wes, hope that can transform their lives.

That hope is a life in Jesus Christ. He brings freedom from bondage, He's the Savior, He heals the broken-hearted. He's the only One that any human can turn to at any time and find life, eternal life. He is the only One who brings purpose to our lives. He is the only One who can reach deep into the soul and spirit of Faith and turn her around. He's doing it all over the world. He's doing it through the proclamation of truth by His Spirit.

The poor and broken and messed up and addicted will always be among us. We need to help them as much as we can and encourage others to do the same, like you are trying to do. But the diference between our message and the world's is that we offer Hope along with help.

That addiction that Faith has, Jesus Christ can help her overcome.

The Faith's of the world can be transformed Mike, but only by Jesus Christ. He died for them, just like He died for you and for any who turn to Him. Tell Faith about Him, Mike, and tell Wes about Him and what He accomplished for them. Give them that Hope.

This is taking up too much of my time and thoughts again, but I have learned from it.

See ya.

[Mike]

George - Just to clarify... I believe you're referring to Vince, not Wes.

And George, you need to know that Faith has known Jesus longer than you have. Life is not a tract.

That's my last word on the subject. Now, anyone else want to talk about the actual content of this post, or shall we move on?

[david]

"Tell Wes about Him" - Laughing my ass off over her in Mongolia! LOL. Oh, that's funny.

I vote for "move on" - this has become a one track record.

I gotta go - need to write Wes an email and tell the wayward old guy about Jesus...

(Mike - let the gang know things are going well in Mongolia - wonderful people doing incredible work among wonderful people. It's cold but warms up to -10 or so and no wind - piece of cake!)

[Mike]

Dude, Even sub-zero you still manage to crack me up.

Glad to hear things are going well. Hug somebody for me.

[george]

Ok Mike, one more thing, if that's really true, that Faith klnows Jesus, then just maybe this story could encourage her. Check it out and see if you might agree:

http://brooklyntabernacle.lightcastmedia.com/console.php?u=3055&c=589705043

[Mike]

If it's true?

If??

George, I think we're done here.

[andrew]

Mike - I appreciate your comments over at empireremixed.com as well as the way you're holding the discussion together over here. It's disappointing to me, George, that you miss the point of Walsh's post.

The overall message of the post is not one that just writes off Romans 13 as though it should be expunged from the bible, but rather, that it should be situated contextually within the entire sweep of scripture, from creation to eschaton.

I guess I just want to reiterate Sonja's point that "Christians have long been accustomed to using the Bible to their own ends," and that we need to become better at reading and applying particular words, verses or chapters contextually.

We're continuing the series of reflections on Romans over at the empire remixed blog, and we'd welcome your comments over there just as much as I appreciate the banter in this kneck of the electronic woods.

[Mike]

Andrew - Thanks very much for coming by and repositioning us back to the point. Twisting posts for our own personal agendas happens from time to time around here unfortunately. Your gracious and straightforward summary is exactly what we needed.

Peace.

[robert]

just for the record, I've never twisted the bible to my own agenda but always respect the post and the spirit in which it is intended.
Go Habs.

[Mike]

When it comes to the Bible we can always count on the atheist to do the right thing.

Go Habs.