Change, or resistance: where is the line drawn?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

OK, some of the folks here would like to impose some fairly radical change on the US Government. I've read Bob's "Day One," of course, and while he's quite enthusiastic about what changes should be made, he gives absolutely no hints about how the change would be started. For the depth and bredth of the changes Bob wants, the current US Constitution would have to no longer be in force. Anyone have any speculation about how this would be accomplished, without violating Rom 13?

More fundamentally, what is the specific line between working for change and "resisting the power?"

[Note to Mods: if this needs to be moved to Politics, cool--I started here because it deals in part with Bob's "Day One."]

 

[Jefferson]

For the depth and bredth of the changes Bob wants, the current US Constitution would have to no longer be in force. Anyone have any speculation about how this would be accomplished, without violating Rom 13?

The most likely scenario is that the government will collapse from the all the dead weight of the monstrous bureaucracy tangled up in its own red tape. Shades of the old Soviet Union. We are fast approaching that point of no return. No "overthrow" or coup will even be neccessary.

More fundamentally, what is the specific line between working for change and "resisting the power?"

? Please elaborate.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

The most likely scenario is that the government will collapse from the all the dead weight of the monstrous bureaucracy tangled up in its own red tape. Shades of the old Soviet Union. We are fast approaching that point of no return. No "overthrow" or coup will even be neccessary.

More fundamentally, what is the specific line between working for change and "resisting the power?"

? Please elaborate.

We're both aware that some folks advocate things like tax resistance or even armed resistance in the face of current governmental action: Neil Horseley even advocated (as part of his gubernatorial attempt in 2000 or 2004) that Georgia split from the Union, and enforce that split with the nuclear weapons stationed there. (Link available on request.)

At what point does it become necessary to "obey God rather than man?" And what forms does that different alliegence take?

 

[servent101]

Justin

More fundamentally, what is the specific line between working for change and "resisting the power?"

Any change requires two things - to know where we are, and where we want to go... so first where are we, and second where do we want to go.

These are very sweeping questions - and for me anyways, I have decided that I as an individual as to what is the motive of the government - and where it wants to go - well I suspect that people in general also have to be understood too - that people - the populous... what makes them tick, what motivates them needs to be understood by Government as well and in return by the people. Not all things are the same for everyone - not everyone is nice, not everyone cares, not everone is mean, - and what of other countries, and what of history, and what can we expect in the future? Then taking all these things together - we might realize that policy is not necessarily made for people who are capable of understading the ins and outs of human nature as it is being molded and controled on a large scale.

I could go on from here - but it would just get more complicated and I doubt if anyone would understand.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Jefferson]

We're both aware that some folks advocate things like tax resistance or even armed resistance in the face of current governmental action: Neil Horseley even advocated (as part of his gubernatorial attempt in 2000 or 2004) that Georgia split from the Union, and enforce that split with the nuclear weapons stationed there. (Link available on request.)

Neil Horseley is a loon. I used to correspond with him via email until I realized he had a messianic complex and a potentially violent one at that. I totally believe you about his opinion on the use of nuclear weapons to accomplish his own personal goals. I had his emails sent to the FBI and then broke off all contact with him.

At what point does it become necessary to "obey God rather than man?" And what forms does that different alliegence take?

We should obey the government in all things unless they require you sin. If the government sins against you, those officials will have to answer to God for that. For example, the Bible says when a governement taxes its citizens 10 percent of their income or more that it is considered stealing. This does not give Christians a green light to join in a tax revolt.

But if the government passes a law telling Christians they need to sin by refraining from preaching the gospel or refraining from tying to rescue the unborn from an abortionists knife, then we should disobey that law.

 

[Balder]

Aren't there are places in the Middle East where you can practice Christianity and also have the "godly satisfaction" of participating in public stonings?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Neil Horseley is a loon.

You got that right! :dizzy:

But if the government passes a law telling Christians they need to sin by refraining from preaching the gospel or refraining from tying to rescue the unborn from an abortionists knife, then we should disobey that law.

"Trying to rescue" ... specifically how? Illegalize abortion--I'm with you. Sidewalk counselling--I'm there. But that same phraseology has been used by the likes of Eric Rudolph and Paul Hill. Where is the line drawn.

And no--I'm not saying anyone here would advocate murdering abortionists or bombing clinics. This is not an accusation--these are serious questions to find where the line is. I remember my Church history enough to remember that one of the things early Christians did was rescue infants who had been left out on hillsides to die of exposure ... but I also remember that it was self-proclaimed "Christians" who have killed doctors, a police officer, and a nurse.

Additionally, there's something that puzzles me ... because the Bible also says "Do not resist the evil man." (Matt 5:39) Self-defense is forbidden by Jesus--and he's not even talking about defending yourself from persecution against the faith, but defending yourself at all! (Yes, I also recognize the possibility that this is hyperbole, but I'm looking for the full spectrum of views.)

So a literalist interpretation of the Bible forbids self-defense, and is silent on the defense of others, but explicitly states "Do not resist the evil man." Does that change the thinking any?

 

[Truppenzwei]

I've just read a book that was given to me last night. It's called a Tale of Three Kings, can't remember the authors name. I think you might find it quite an interesting read J. I feel it ilustrates quite well how we are supposed to react to this sort of thing.

T.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I've just read a book that was given to me last night. It's called a Tale of Three Kings, can't remember the authors name. I think you might find it quite an interesting read J. I feel it ilustrates quite well how we are supposed to react to this sort of thing.

Gene Edwards is the author's name, but since I don't have the book available, can you give me a synopsis of how you feel you're supposed to react?

 

[Truppenzwei]

Well, In essence he contrasts the way that David reacted to Saul persecuting him and how Saul reacted to David. He then goes on to contrast how David, facing with Absolom a similar situation as Saul had with him reacted.

The main thrust of the book is about how true authority is about submission rather than gaining obedience - a very thought provoking read.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Well, In essence he contrasts the way that David reacted to Saul persecuting him and how Saul reacted to David. He then goes on to contrast how David, facing with Absolom a similar situation as Saul had with him reacted.

The main thrust of the book is about how true authority is about submission rather than gaining obedience - a very thought provoking read.

So ... from what I remember of the interactions between Saul and David (and later Saul and Absalom), the idea is to obey or flee, but not to resist?

 

[Truppenzwei]

So ... from what I remember of the interactions between Saul and David (and later Saul and Absalom), the idea is to obey or flee, but not to resist?

On one level yes. It is more about the point that authority comes from God it is not something we earn or need to fight to keep - it's a gift that is given and cannot be revoked.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

On one level yes. It is more about the point that authority comes from God it is not something we earn or need to fight to keep - it's a gift that is given and cannot be revoked.

Hmmm ... I seem to remember two circumstances where authority was revoked: from Saul, and from Rehoboam (actually from Solomon, but Rehoboam payed the consequences in his life).

However, this brings up another point that is more closely associated with Enyart's political philosophy: Bob certainly has the right and the authority to advocate a certain government. Yet even if our current government collapsed, does he (or any other Christian) have the authority to implement it?

 

[Jefferson]

Hmmm ... I seem to remember two circumstances where authority was revoked: from Saul, and from Rehoboam (actually from Solomon, but Rehoboam payed the consequences in his life).

However, this brings up another point that is more closely associated with Enyart's political philosophy: Bob certainly has the right and the authority to advocate a certain government. Yet even if our current government collapsed, does he (or any other Christian) have the authority to implement it?

I attempt to implement it every time I step into a voting booth. I vote for the candidates I believe will come closest to "imposing" Biblical Law on society.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I attempt to implement it every time I step into a voting booth. I vote for the candidates I believe will come closest to "imposing" Biblical Law on society.

An interesting point, but not within the context of my question. Where do Christians get authority to implement an "all-new" Government? Specifically, do Christians have the authority to impose a "Christian Government" on non-Christians?

 

[docrob57]

An interesting point, but not within the context of my question. Where do Christians get authority to implement an "all-new" Government? Specifically, do Christians have the authority to impose a "Christian Government" on non-Christians?

Christians have the right to vote. They, like anyone else, have the right to vote in accordance with whatever criteria they choose. Some vote based on economic self-interest, some based on which candidate is prettiest, some on religious values, etc.

Voting on the basis of ones religious values is not trying to impose a Christian government on non-Christians.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Christians have the right to vote. They, like anyone else, have the right to vote in accordance with whatever criteria they choose. Some vote based on economic self-interest, some based on which candidate is prettiest, some on religious values, etc.

Voting on the basis of ones religious values is not trying to impose a Christian government on non-Christians.

No, I have no problem with voting a Christian ticket--if that's what Christians want to do, that's fine. However, once again my question was in the context of a collapse of the current government. In the absence of a government, where in the Bible is the authority to establish a "Christian Nation," without considering (or even against the will of) the non-Christians present in your population? (The basic scenario presented by "Day One.")

 

[docrob57]

No, I have no problem with voting a Christian ticket--if that's what Christians want to do, that's fine. However, once again my question was in the context of a collapse of the current government. In the absence of a government, where in the Bible is the authority to establish a "Christian Nation," without considering (or even against the will of) the non-Christians present in your population? (The basic scenario presented by "Day One.")

I don't think it is addressed in the BIble one way or another.

If the government were to "collapse," the government at least initially would be controlled directly or indirectly by the military.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I don't think it is addressed in the BIble one way or another.

Then whence Dominion Theology?

Come to think of it ... whence Bob's "Day One" scenario?

If the government were to "collapse," the government at least initially would be controlled directly or indirectly by the military.

:nods: Probably. But with your permission, let's for now avoid the topic of if and when it will happen. Political prognostication isn't my long-suit.

 

[Jefferson]

Then whence Dominion Theology?

"But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (I Timothy 1:8-10)