September 30, 2011
Sowing Seeds
Driving past a church the particular denomination didn’t register with
me, but the message on the marquee gave me whiplash. The statement was, “Question Authority”. Who’s
authority…God’s, the government’s, your parent’s? Paul addresses the authority
issue saying, “Everyone
must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority
except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been
established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the
authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so
will bring judgment on themselves.” (Ro
13:1-2 N IV) I suppose one could argue there is a difference between
questioning and rebelling, but I can’t help but wonder if the one who put the
message on the marquee is not in fact sowing seeds of rebellion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Gail;
-----Paul lived in a society governed by dictatorship. People had little involvement in their own being governed; the government was what it was. I don’t know how much the growing disapproval of Roman control felt by the fundamental Jews effected a similar disdain within the believers at Rome. But it is part of the human condition to notice deficiencies of governing authorities, and the more cruel and controlling the government, the more the tendency is to notice. The Roman Empire was not a sweetheart. It is also human nature to disregard demands backed by threats against what is of little value. I’m certain our government would have bellied up long ago if the threat to your not paying income tax was your being sent to bed without ice cream. The Romans often lined the Apian Way with crucifixions so people would fear its demands. But we must admit, the new life in Jesus Christ reorders death’s place in life’s line of priorities. The cross thing might be a bit uncomfortable, but whatever, any government’s death threats just brings Heaven closer. I only speculate these are what invoked Paul’s address of obeying governing authorities.
-----But what he did not address was the response to bad government. The only options people under the tyranny of a Roman Empire had to bad government was to pay the consequences of it either by subjecting to its uncomfortable demands and bullying, or go enjoy the being crucified thing. I think Paul was telling them under his breathe to choose the former consequential option, but certainly hang low, out of sight, and disobedient when you‘re commanded to worship Caesar.
-----We aren’t The Roman Empire. Yet. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what type government had been given the people, he replied, “...a constitutional republic...” The constitutional part is an indelible agreement between the people and a governmental power to emerge from the processes defined by that constitution. As such, the power of government exists only according to the parameters of the Constitution. Anything else is not government. I.e., the fact that a Supreme Court is established to address constitutional matters does not place Supreme Court rulings above the Constitution. The justices’ oath of office being a swearing to uphold the Constitution makes any ruling outside the meaning of it void of power.
-----The republic part of the formula is the power of the government being vested in the people. Their individual sovereignty is placed above the state and, by agreement, is constrained by law only in regards to the protections of each other’s property, life, and civil liberties. The agreement itself speaks of the people’s right to an address of their grievances, and, under its breathe, even to their invocation of the Second Amendment for that address, if need be.
(continued...)
Love you all,
Steve Corey
(...continued)
-----Therefore, we have a government founded firmly upon the very principle of questioning authority. It even gives place for questioning constitutional authority by providing the means for dissolving the union of the state, for opening another constitutional convention, or for simply amending the Bill of Rights. It all begins by questioning authority.
-----This is why Benjamin Franklin added to his answer, “...if you can keep it.” What he meant is revealed by another one of those “dead white-guys“, I think it was John Adams, who basically said the Constitution was written for a moral and upright people and would serve for the governance of none other. Saying that it is good to question authority is correct, but it is also more dangerous than saying it is good to eat. Both are required for the maintenance of a well operating life. But eating is a very concrete activity having immediate consequences. So, we don’t eat hemlock in our salads. And we pick mushrooms cautiously. Questioning authority is abstract. Its consequences can be delayed for generations, often too late for learning what to question and what not to question.
-----The authority of the Constitution has been questioned from its very time of having been written. Even centuries before its writing the debate between individual sovereignty over the state or state sovereignty over the individual existed in one basic form or another. That debate had been honed by the end of the eighteenth century to produce governments of state supremacy and ours of individual sovereignty. Ours was made what it is by the people’s agreement for it to be that. And it was given the ability to become a supreme state, but only through agreed upon processes for the people to change it into that.
-----Ignoring constitutional provisions for fundamental change, Progressives have been using ploys, plots, and diversions our agreement does not authorize for injecting our government with elements of state supremacy rejected by our agreement. This leads to unauthorized powers of government, and is a theft of our lives. A moral and upright people would not only question these powers, but being intelligent enough to discern abstract threats, they would defeat them by what ever means necessary.
-----So, it would behoove Christ’s people to come to the defense of the government our constitution made of an upright and moral people, rather than invoking this “don’t question authority” stuff while an unauthorized government closes its tyrannical grip around the neck of our agreement which made us the government. Seems to me, since by agreement we are the government, Progressives breaking the agreement to make us subjects are not the government and deserve more than a good questioning.
Post a Comment