yo dudes...lets talk about view on government. why, you might ask, do i bring this up?
last night at youth i was asked whether or not to support war. big question. i answered it by telling them both common christian views, one of pacifism and one of allowing war and fighting for your country. i support the pro-war model. i told them that.
second...this morning as i was reading through 1 samuel 10:27 i couldn't help but think that this is the same thing.
there were some men when saul was anointed that thought he was bogus, so they refused to bring him gifts. the despised him. and they are called worthless.
is this the same as accusing our President of being an idiot? afterall, God is the one who places men in authority over the antions and brings about war in the first place. so, the reason they are worthless for despising Saul is probably because they refuse to acknowledge that God is sovereign over the creation of government. is that how we should read it? they are referenced ( i think) again in 11:12-13. the people want to kill them, but Samuel says that they shouldn't.
-joe
Monday, September 17, 2007
government
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your argument is easily defeated by saying that Hitler deserved to be honored by his people simply because he was a political leader.
And I will happily, and with conviction, call President Bush an idiot, basically because his policies are reprehensible. This, by no means, is a disrespectful attitude toward government; after all, I have the ability to vote him out of office, and that's still an opportunity to honor God through my participation.
A moral question: if I vote for the person that God supposedly selects for an office, does that make me a deviant from God's will?
hey matt (is this matt from yellowstone/minnesota?)
I don't think that the Hitler illustration works for a couple of reasons. (I'm not saying I disagree with your final assumption that we can call our President an idiot, just that your defense doesn't work for me).
What of all the Old Testament kings who were just as ruthless as Hitler. One that comes to mind is Nebuchadnezzar. He was the king who called for all to fall down in worship of his image, but three stood. They were promptly thrown into the furnace. Nowhere in this story is there evidence that just because a king (or ruler) is ruthless, that we can say he doesn't have authority. The reason the three stood was because bowing down violated a greater command of God, to have no other gods and not to bow down to any image. It wasn't because Nebuchadnezzar was horrible or wicked, but because the law defied God that they stood against him.
Along the same lines, when the 2 year old males of Israel are executed at the command of Herod, there is no political cry from the New Testament authors. Mary and Joseph run at the direct command of an angel sent from God.
The second reason I don't think it holds as an argument is the 4th chapter of Daniel. In verse 32 it is pretty clear that God is in complete control of the kingdoms of men. That is what Nebuchadnezzar must realize before he is restored. So, to say that a ruler is somehow not set in place by God himself is to usurp the sovereignty of God over the government of the earth. (also see v. 17 *given to the lowliest* and v. 25)
To answer the moral question, I think you meant to say if you vote for the person *not* elected. I would simply point to the last election. It is fairly clear that George Bush did NOT win the popular vote, however, because of a system in place he was elected. Some may call this a flaw in the system. I say this is God's sovereignty in action. Despite the best efforts by the people of this country to put someone else in charge, God put who he wanted. The lowliest, perhaps, but who he wanted none the less.
Post a Comment