randomly exegeting stuff
I haven't been posting much about everyday life. Things just don't seem as interesting or inspiring lately, even tho they're as bizarre as ever. We found a random Filipino store in town with baked beans, canned tomatoes and the nice short bottles of San Miguel. It's nice to have a little variety from the normal grocer's selection. I ended up getting locked out last week while Leta was out shopping and I realized that I don't very often go walking around town without her when I was bombarded endlessly by Korean teens saying "hello, hi, nice to meet you, whats your name, how are you today, you're beautiful, i love you..." Leta had a birthday and we went to TGIFridays and she blew a hundred bux on clothes, I found out roses are pretty inexpensive even out of season. I'm getting sick of my job and some days I feel like the next big disappointment is gonna set me off to packing my bags and heading for the next ship off this peninsula. I've had every one of my favorite classes stripped from my schedule and with what I've been left with, my least favorite class is now one of my best. Been listening to a lot of Mason Jennings, Cake, White Stripes, Pedro the Lion and Shins lately and have given the lectures a break. When I realized I'd gained 20 pounds since arriving in Korea, I went out and bought a weight and a yoga mat and have been doing crunches and lifts. I've also stop having my staple omelette rice fried pork lunch delivered cuz obviously it's more unhealthy than I'd realized. One of the other teachers' boyfriend visited for a couple weeks and it was nice, if relatively uneventful, to have a new english-speaking-face around while he was. I've been downloading dozens of movies to simulate having an English movie rental place nearby. Generally discouraged about why I'm in Korea and what stage this is supposed to be in the disjointed progression of my life. It seems so meaningless compared to other travel experiences that I've had, though I'm making good money here and I had to pay for those trips. I got nostalgic and put some of the pics I have from my trip to Southeast Asia onto a blog that I might end up using to type up my journal or write reflections or something: http://thaimalayphil.blogspot.com. I was listening to some NPR podcasted debates regarding religiousity lately and today decided randomly to try to come up with a decent argument why I'm not biblically obliged to support the government. Nothing else to state about my life for the record, so here it is:
I have long been interested in the idea of whether Christians have a duty to support their governing authorities and by association their commands and decisions, short (of course) of compromising the fundamentals of one’s faith. This issue is important to me because it seems to be a case in which my feelings differ from those of traditional biblical interpretation. During the height of its power, the institutional Church in Europe supported the idea of "the divine right of kings". The divine right of kings was the view that rulers were appointed to their positions of authority by God and thus that it was according to and by his will that every ruler came to power. This mandate seems to have biblical support in some places, most notably in Romans 13:1-7 which represents one extreme view in favor of standing unanimously behind all governing authorities:
"(1) 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. (2) Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. (4) For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (5) Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (6) This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. (7) Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." (Romans 13:1-7)
At first glance, seems to be a very clear mandate to follow government because all authorities are good and operate according to upright standards of justice. You will notice, though, that the "governing authorities" which are referred to in the passage seem to be described as unilaterally possessing good intentions and reasonable standards of justice. It does not say "submit yourself to all authorities” REGARDLESS of whether they "bears the sword for nothing." It simply says that they Christians must follow them because they are good. At the same time, it still does not imply that if the government does not live up to these standards one ought not to comply with it.
To further examine the meaning of this passage, one must step away from these words as literal commandments of God and consider them within the context of their author and intended audience: Paul the apostle to the Christian communities of first-century Rome. These Christians were vulnerable to the suspicion of dominant Pagan society, as they were seen as a group that set themselves apart antisocially by declined to participate in pagan civic lifestyle. There was paranoia among some that the Christians posed some threat to the Roman Empire and this paranoia would have been especially potent in Rome as it was the center of the empire. This paranoia would later result in the victimization and persecution of the early church throughout the reigns of many emperors.
It is plausible then to imagine that Paul would have written this passage in order to give the clear message that Christian principles advocate adherence to all standards of government, stated in such a way as to praise of the fairness and just nature of Roman leadership as a means of dispelling this paranoia.
If you look at the message in the previous chapter, it seems to lend credibility to this perspective. Paul in Romans 12:2 suggests that promoted "not conform[ing] any longer to the pattern of this world, but be[ing] transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Such a message does not directly advocate dissention, but it does encourage what could (rightfully) be interpreted as antisocial behavior. The leaders of the time regarded antisocial tendencies a serious threat to the cohesion of society in an empire who was constantly faced with the challenge of maintaining unity in the face of diversity. New sources of diversity that would keep people from participating in social events and accepting the values of social religion were seen as degenerate. Thus, by following this chapter with a mandate of submission to government, Paul clearly hoped to alleviate suspicion.
If you look at the message directly following Romans 13:1-7, you see that it suggests that the end times were believed to be even sooner at hand than had been previously understood. It advocates that the most important endeavor is to focus on refining ones own character through a holy life free of immorality. This seems to suggest that submission to governing authorities is done because the more important issue is personal preparation for salvation and because any rebellion would be a misappropriation of energy.
It does not seem that many governments, if any, live up to the standards declared in this passage. It is indisputably inaccurate that “rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.” It seems likely, then, that Paul was appeasing the leaders of Rome and recommending that the Christian church do so as well. It seems likely that he is declaring the importance of submitting to government under ideal conditions, but his words do not seem to reveal anything of how we should deal with governmental injustice in our current times.
I have long been interested in the idea of whether Christians have a duty to support their governing authorities and by association their commands and decisions, short (of course) of compromising the fundamentals of one’s faith. This issue is important to me because it seems to be a case in which my feelings differ from those of traditional biblical interpretation. During the height of its power, the institutional Church in Europe supported the idea of "the divine right of kings". The divine right of kings was the view that rulers were appointed to their positions of authority by God and thus that it was according to and by his will that every ruler came to power. This mandate seems to have biblical support in some places, most notably in Romans 13:1-7 which represents one extreme view in favor of standing unanimously behind all governing authorities:
"(1) 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. (2) Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. (4) For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (5) Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (6) This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. (7) Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." (Romans 13:1-7)
At first glance, seems to be a very clear mandate to follow government because all authorities are good and operate according to upright standards of justice. You will notice, though, that the "governing authorities" which are referred to in the passage seem to be described as unilaterally possessing good intentions and reasonable standards of justice. It does not say "submit yourself to all authorities” REGARDLESS of whether they "bears the sword for nothing." It simply says that they Christians must follow them because they are good. At the same time, it still does not imply that if the government does not live up to these standards one ought not to comply with it.
To further examine the meaning of this passage, one must step away from these words as literal commandments of God and consider them within the context of their author and intended audience: Paul the apostle to the Christian communities of first-century Rome. These Christians were vulnerable to the suspicion of dominant Pagan society, as they were seen as a group that set themselves apart antisocially by declined to participate in pagan civic lifestyle. There was paranoia among some that the Christians posed some threat to the Roman Empire and this paranoia would have been especially potent in Rome as it was the center of the empire. This paranoia would later result in the victimization and persecution of the early church throughout the reigns of many emperors.
It is plausible then to imagine that Paul would have written this passage in order to give the clear message that Christian principles advocate adherence to all standards of government, stated in such a way as to praise of the fairness and just nature of Roman leadership as a means of dispelling this paranoia.
If you look at the message in the previous chapter, it seems to lend credibility to this perspective. Paul in Romans 12:2 suggests that promoted "not conform[ing] any longer to the pattern of this world, but be[ing] transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Such a message does not directly advocate dissention, but it does encourage what could (rightfully) be interpreted as antisocial behavior. The leaders of the time regarded antisocial tendencies a serious threat to the cohesion of society in an empire who was constantly faced with the challenge of maintaining unity in the face of diversity. New sources of diversity that would keep people from participating in social events and accepting the values of social religion were seen as degenerate. Thus, by following this chapter with a mandate of submission to government, Paul clearly hoped to alleviate suspicion.
If you look at the message directly following Romans 13:1-7, you see that it suggests that the end times were believed to be even sooner at hand than had been previously understood. It advocates that the most important endeavor is to focus on refining ones own character through a holy life free of immorality. This seems to suggest that submission to governing authorities is done because the more important issue is personal preparation for salvation and because any rebellion would be a misappropriation of energy.
It does not seem that many governments, if any, live up to the standards declared in this passage. It is indisputably inaccurate that “rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.” It seems likely, then, that Paul was appeasing the leaders of Rome and recommending that the Christian church do so as well. It seems likely that he is declaring the importance of submitting to government under ideal conditions, but his words do not seem to reveal anything of how we should deal with governmental injustice in our current times.
posted by Pope Lithium at 9:29 AM
4 Comments:
... and youre so intelligent and resourceful!
love, molly
When I think about how the people (Jesus, the disciples & later Paul)lived it out I'm inclined to conclude that our obligation to the government could be summed up as "Pay your taxes, show respect and pray for your leaders - even if you don't obey them in matters of conscience."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PS I wish you two would come teach (or study) here in Japan! Why don't you get your Master's at Hirodai, Adam?
Post a Comment
<< Home