Christian Morality Thread

[NSOE]

Saying you should follow the law and avoid active disobedience is not the same as saying that every revolution is inherently wrong.

Yet again, this is what Blade Runner has always pointed out, without analyzing and taking the historical, (geo)political, social, or economic, context in which a letter was written into account, we won't be able to make much sense of the epistle.

Romans 13: while Paul's religious teachings are universal, here the letter is addressed directly to the Christian community of the imperial capital. We know Rome tolerated foreign cults, at that time Jews were the ones persecuting early Christians who were an insignificant Jewish sect in the government's view. The government maintained order and facilitated commerce, Rome let its subject be as long as they did not rebel and were paying their taxes, a reasonable arrangement to be protected from possible, truly predatory rule of rival powers lying in wait on the outside:

Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
- R 13: 7

Rome was the heart of the beast, the title of Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest, was held by the emperor who with his College of Pontiffs headed the state religion. Rebelling against this authority in that place at that moment in history would have been reckless and very detrimental to the developing community of faith. He calls for obedience so that they may have peace by avoiding any unnecessary conflict with the authorities. Maybe St.Paul is trying to cool some nascent rebellious sentiment. Rejecting the pagan god-emperor's rule, passive or even active resistance which would have endangered Christians in the whole empire, and made them targets of the government too (which they would not have become until growing to much greater noticeable proportions in the following decades)- besides those in the city itself who could start the trouble:

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. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

-R 13: 1- 2

Paul made it clear he was talking about just, tolerant, benevolent and righteous rulers, not depraved, unethical, immoral, corrupt, decadent, vicious, and perverted tyrants. Many prominent members mentioned and have pointed this out, and it bears repeating for any new lurkers to see. Paul calls kings ministers of God who aid in good works and oppose evil:

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. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
- R 13: 3- 6

It took me all of the above to say what others have said over and over on the forum: It follows that a king who does not oppose evil, is no legitimate ruler. And what we have now is worse, governments enable it and are a terror to good works. God's laws are clearly defined so it's easy to see.

 

[Iakobos]

Yet again, this is what Blade Runner has always pointed out, without analyzing and taking the historical, (geo)political, social, or economic, context in which a letter was written into account, we won't be able to make much sense of the epistle.

Romans 13: while Paul's religious teachings are universal, here the letter is addressed directly to the Christian community of the imperial capital. We know Rome tolerated foreign cults, at that time Jews were the ones persecuting early Christians who were an insignificant Jewish sect in the government's view. The government maintained order and facilitated commerce, Rome let its subject be as long as they did not rebel and were paying their taxes, a reasonable arrangement to be protected from possible, truly predatory rule of rival powers lying in wait on the outside:

Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
- R 13: 7

Rome was the heart of the beast, the title of Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest, was held by the emperor who with his College of Pontiffs headed the state religion. Rebelling against this authority in that place at that moment in history would have been reckless and very detrimental to the developing community of faith. He calls for obedience so that they may have peace by avoiding any unnecessary conflict with the authorities. Maybe St.Paul is trying to cool some nascent rebellious sentiment. Rejecting the pagan god-emperor's rule, passive or even active resistance which would have endangered Christians everywhere and made them targets of the government too, which they would not have become until growing to much greater noticeable proportions in the following decades:

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. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

-R 13: 1- 2

Paul made it clear he was talking about just, tolerant, benevolent and righteous rulers, not depraved, unethical, immoral, corrupt, decadent, vicious, and perverted tyrants. Many prominent members mentioned and not, have pointed this out and it bears repeating for any new lurkers to see. He calls them ministers of God who aid in good works and oppose evil:

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. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
- R 13: 3- 6

It took me all of the above to say what others have said over and over on the forum: It follows a king who does not oppose evil, is no legitimate ruler. And what we have now is worse, governments enable it and are a terror to good works. God's laws are clearly defined so it's easy to see.

This plus the interesting question about whether the American Revolution was justified got my noggin joggin', so I'm going to think aloud here.

My instinct is to interpret this Scripture as saying, so long as the authorities do not use their authority to cause or command you to break the law of God, then obey them, respect their authority, pay taxes and follow their customs; in Christ's words, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.

I think that this is a bit different from the position you are stating in that there could be rulers who are not righteous, benevolent or Godly, yet who are not ordering you to break the commandments of God. Your interpretation says that they are not legitimate rulers but I think there may be something to the interpretation that lousy rulers should still be obeyed (taxes, due honor, rules and so forth) so long as they do not cause or command the people to break God's law.

Some Patristic commentary below.

St. Basil the Great:

It is right to submit to higher authority whenever a command of God is not violated thereby.

St. Augustine:

it is fitting that, as far as this life is concerned, we be subject to the authorities, i.e., to the people who with some recognition administer human affairs. But as far as the spiritual side is concerned, in which we believe in God and are called into his kingdom, it is not right for us to be subject to any man who seeks to overturn in us the very thing which God has been pleased to grant us so that we might obtain eternal life. So if anyone thinks that because he is a Christian he does not have to pay taxes or tribute nor show the proper respect to the authorities who take care of these things, he is in very great error. Likewise, if anyone thinks that he ought to submit to the point where he accepts that someone who is his superior in temporal affairs should have authority even over his faith, he falls into an even greater error. But the balance which the Lord himself prescribed is to be maintained: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s but unto God the things which are God’s.” For although we are called into that kingdom where there will be no power of this world, nevertheless, while we are on the way there and until we have reached that state where every principality and power will be destroyed, let us put up with our condition for the sake of human affairs, doing nothing falsely and in this very thing obeying God, who commands us to do it, rather than men.

...

This is helpful for understanding that because of this life we must be subject and not offer resistance if anyone wants to take something from us, if it is in his power to do so, because authority has been given to him over temporal things, which will pass away. We are not to be subject in those good things which remain forever but only in the needs of this age. But when he says “one must be subject,” lest anyone submit to the authorities halfheartedly and not from pure love, Paul adds: “not only to avoid … wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” That is to say, you should not submit simply to avoid the authority’s anger, which can be done by pretense, but so that you might be assured in your conscience that you are doing this out of love for him. For you submit at your Lord’s command.
...

This can upset some people, when they think that Christians have often suffered persecution by these authorities. They say: “Were these Christians not doing good, since not only did the authorities not praise them, they punished and killed them!” The apostle’s words must be carefully considered. He does not say: “Do what is good and the authorities will praise you,” but: “Do what is good and you will have praise from him.” Whether someone in authority approves what you do or persecutes you, “you will have praise from him,” either when you win it by your obedience to God or when you earn your crown by persecution.

Augustine make a strong connection to Christ's teaching on what to render to Caesar and God, and also seems to teach that even ungodly authorities are "from God" in that they give you an opportunity for martyrdom in the name of Christ.

St. John Chrysostom:

Paul has a good deal to say on this matter in his other epistles also, placing subjects under their rulers in the same way that household servants are under their masters. He does this to show that Christ did not introduce his laws for the purpose of undermining the state but rather so that it should be better governed. He does not speak about individual rulers but about the principle of authority itself. For that there should be rulers and ruled and that things should not just lapse into anarchy, with the people swaying like waves from one extreme to the other, is the work of God’s wisdom.

Most of Chrysostom's commentary is regarding the function of the state in establishing order as opposed to anarchy.

---

Those better versed than I on the American Revolution can chime in but as far as I remember, the King was not commanding or causing any violation of God's commandments but rather the dispute was centered on taxes and political self-determination. From that perspective it seems like they may have been disobedient to St. Paul's teaching here.

Then again I guess it's not shocking that the following group of men might not be paragons of Christian morals and ethics:

George Washington - Freemasonic Deist who never used Christ's name and avoided communion
Benjamin Franklin - Freemasonic Deist who rejected Divine Revelation and the Incarnation
Thomas Jefferson - Deist who desecrated Scripture by cutting out everything other than moral teachings, denied Christ's divinity and Divine Revelation
John Adams - Unitarian Theist, Denied the Trinity, the Incarnation and Divine Revelation
John Hancock - Freemasonic Deist
Thomas Paine - Anti-Christian Deist worshipper of reason
Paul Revere - Freemasonic Deist who never used Christ's name

 

[NSOE]

This plus the interesting question about whether the American Revolution was justified got my noggin joggin', so I'm going to think aloud here.

I was thinking aloud too, I haven't yet read any Patristic writings I'm afraid to admit. I know the Colonists had some grievances but I'd have to look more into that, the crown levied taxes were lower than what they got afterwards. I ought to follow the Church's teachings instead of trying to find my own explanations.

In Romans 13, St. Paul has defined the king as a minister of God/good works, and a terror to evil. I'd say if a ruler isn't that, or forces you to do evil, or both- then he's illegitimate.

Does this mean I have the right to overthrow him, or should I just weasel out, or disobey the laws which cause me to sin and accept his authority in all the other cases? A government that promotes abortion- I don't have to participate, a government murders somebody which does not affect me directly- do I stand by in silence? I don't want to get between God and his child/servant, both of us will face his judgment individually, and I shouldn't worry about anybody's conscience but my own. We're required to admonish our brothers nevertheless, but kings are beyond our reach, and who is the real authority in the system we have today we can go to with our worries.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

This plus the interesting question about whether the American Revolution was justified got my noggin joggin', so I'm going to think aloud here.

My instinct is to interpret this Scripture as saying, so long as the authorities do not use their authority to cause or command you to break the law of God, then obey them, respect their authority, pay taxes and follow their customs; in Christ's words, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.

I think that this is a bit different from the position you are stating in that there could be rulers who are not righteous, benevolent or Godly, yet who are not ordering you to break the commandments of God. Your interpretation says that they are not legitimate rulers but I think there may be something to the interpretation that lousy rulers should still be obeyed (taxes, due honor, rules and so forth) so long as they do not cause or command the people to break God's law.

Some Patristic commentary below.

St. Basil the Great:



St. Augustine:



Augustine make a strong connection to Christ's teaching on what to render to Caesar and God, and also seems to teach that even ungodly authorities are "from God" in that they give you an opportunity for martyrdom in the name of Christ.

St. John Chrysostom:



Most of Chrysostom's commentary is regarding the function of the state in establishing order as opposed to anarchy.

---

Those better versed than I on the American Revolution can chime in but as far as I remember, the King was not commanding or causing any violation of God's commandments but rather the dispute was centered on taxes and political self-determination. From that perspective it seems like they may have been disobedient to St. Paul's teaching here.

Then again I guess it's not shocking that the following group of men might not be paragons of Christian morals and ethics:

George Washington - Freemasonic Deist who never used Christ's name and avoided communion
Benjamin Franklin - Freemasonic Deist who rejected Divine Revelation and the Incarnation
Thomas Jefferson - Deist who desecrated Scripture by cutting out everything other than moral teachings, denied Christ's divinity and Divine Revelation
John Adams - Unitarian Theist, Denied the Trinity, the Incarnation and Divine Revelation
John Hancock - Freemasonic Deist
Thomas Paine - Anti-Christian Deist worshipper of reason
Paul Revere - Freemasonic Deist who never used Christ's name

I was thinking aloud too, I haven't yet read any Patristic writings I'm afraid to admit. I know the Colonists had some grievances but I'd have to look more into that, the crown levied taxes were lower than what they got afterwards. I ought to follow the Church's teachings instead of trying to find my own explanations.

In Romans 13, St. Paul has defined the king as a minister of God/good works, and a terror to evil. I'd say if a ruler isn't that, or forces you to do evil, or both- then he's illegitimate.

Does this mean I have the right to overthrow him, or should I just weasel out, or disobey the laws which cause me to sin and accept his authority in all the other cases? A government that promotes abortion- I don't have to participate, a government murders somebody which does not affect me directly- do I stand by in silence? I don't want to get between God and his child/servant, both of us will face his judgment individually, and I shouldn't worry about anybody's conscience but my own. We're required to admonish our brothers nevertheless, but kings are beyond our reach, and who is the real authority in the system we have today we can go to with our worries.

If the government decides to do gun grabs, can we shoot back? I’ve heard some claim that the constitution is the ruling authority of the land, even more so than the politicians. In the US it’s believed our rights come from God.