This is the fourth post on Christian ethics in my ongoing series, theology in bullet points. The first unit in this series had to do with God and Creation (book here), and the second unit was on Christology and Atonement.
We are now in the third and final unit: The Holy Spirit and the Church. The first set of posts in this final unit was on the Holy Spirit. The second set was on the Church. The third set was on sacraments. This final section is on Christian ethics.
_______________________________
God calls us to respect authority in honor of his authority.
1. The authority of God is the universal assumption of Scripture. His will demands absolute conformity, even if he allows us to resist and disobey. We get a small taste of his holiness when Uzzah immediately dies when he tries to steady the ark (2 Sam. 6:6-7). Similarly, at Mt. Sinai, any person or animal that might touch the mountain was to be put to death while God presence was there (Exod. 19:12-13).
The ancient world was an honor/shame world. High premium was put on how highly you were regarded in relation to the values of your group. Such a world contrasts with our modern individualistic "guilt" culture, where high premium is put on being true to yourself and what you as an individual believe.
The command not to take the name of the LORD in vain was a command that had to do with taking oaths in the name of YHWH, the name of God. When one invoked YHWH's name, one put the honor of YHWH on the line in relation to a vow. To break the vow was to dishonor him. To break the vow was thus to incur the wrath of YHWH.
Jephthah gives us a picture of how important it was to keep a vow in Judges 11:30-31. He vows to YHWH that he will sacrifice the first living thing that comes out of his house if God gives him the victory in battle. It proves to be his daughter. So he gives his daughter two months to mourn her death as an unmarried virgin and then he keeps his vow (11:37-39).
Jesus undercuts this command when he says not to swear at all but to be a person who tells the truth (Matt. 5:33-37). If my "yes" really means "yes" and my "no" really means "no," then there is no need for me to take oaths. People will know that I am a person whose word is truth, a person who means what I say.
If God's people are truth-tellers, then God will get honor from us without us needing to take vows.
2. Vows of course have little meaning in the modern Western world today. People say, "I swear," all the time and it is practically meaningless. With Jesus Christ and the New Testament, we are also better aware of the compassionate forgiveness of God if someone were to make a bad vow like Jephthah's. We can now say that it would have been far more pleasing to God for Jephthah to ask God's forgiveness for a foolish vow and then to spare his daughter's life than to keep his foolish vow.
Cursing today doesn't have the same character as it did in other times and places. People say God or Jesus' name (or a derivative of them) as an exclamation rather than as a vow. The third commandment was not about cursing but about vow keeping. Nevertheless, Ephesians 5:4 and Colossians 3:8 tell us what we would have known otherwise--our speech should be honorable and uplifting. We can either honor or dishonor God with our language and, even more importantly, the attitude behind our language.
3. Almost every culture has some authority structure. Those few pockets of humanity that have not had a clear leader usually develop one or have one that is unacknowledged. Even if we were all in perfect submission to and communication with the Holy Spirit, there would still be a leader--the Holy Spirit.
So while it is ideal that, in any group, all the individuals would "honor one another above yourselves" (Rom. 12:10, NIV), it is likely that structures of authority will develop in any group of people of any size. Churches naturally have official leadership structures. Nations and people groups naturally have official leadership structures. "If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?" (1 Cor. 14:8).
Paul told the Romans, "The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Rom. 13:1). The way most of us apply this idea is that we should show respect to our leaders, even if they are evil, even if they are incompetent. The classic example is when David does not take an opportunity to kill king Saul, even though Saul is trying to kill him. He does not do it, even though his men are urging him, because he will not touch the LORD's anointed (1 Sam. 24:6).
To be sure, God also is said to sanction coups in Scripture (e.g., 2 Kings 9:6-7). Elisha anoints Jehu to destroy the house of Ahab. Yet even here, Hosea considers Jehu's slaughter of all Ahab's house to be a matter for which God was going to destroy the house of Jehu (Hos. 1:4).
Clearly there is a great wisdom needed here. When do we submit and conform to what we consider to be bad leadership? When do we, respectfully, work for leadership change?
In the light of Christ, our bias must be toward respect and submission, even if there may be times for exception. It is fallen human nature to justify subversion for our own selfish advancement. It is more often the evil impulse that wants to fight and overthrow. Any exception must be for the good of others rather than ourselves, and we can hardly trust ourselves to make that judgment.
4. We are thus called to respect the authority of those over us as a way of honoring God and respecting his authority. Our default should be submission and respect for those in authority over us in whatever domain. We should treat those in office as God's anointed. There is a time to work for change, but it must never be for our selfish advancement, only the good of others and to honor God.
Next week: ET5. God calls us to respect our governments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
America has not known "submission" to authority to be the highest value in our society, because America is not an authoritarian country. America does believe in established principles that have been internalized. The principles of liberty and justice for all are the established principles, but are in question due to "social justice types".
Just this morning I read the headlines of several articles that disturb me. One from the Washington Post asked a "what would Jesus do" kind of question about the Syrian Refugees! Another FB friends posted an article about Steve Jobs having a Syrian Refugee as his father and posed a "what if=then" question. "What if" Steve Job's father had not been let into America, then wouldn't we have suffered the loss of Steve Job's inventions? These two questions are not based on Western sensibilities. Here's why.
Modern countries have established boundaries or borders which define the Nation-State. The question about whether the nation state should be respected as an "authority" that protects people from danger should not be questioned, but it is being questioned because of those that want to bring about a "world order" that establishes "social justice". Was this why the President said in his speech that he wasn't interested in Americans "winning" because he thinks we're a privileged Nation and he wants the playing field to be equalized? The President nor the Democratic candidates, nor those that hold those political views will name the enemy for fear of offending those that hold similar commitments. Radical Islamic jihadists have to be labeled differently, otherwise, the West will categorize others in a prejudiced way, and that is not "social justice"! Yet, the President made an oath to the American People to protect national interests so that the citizens in the nation could live at peace. The problem becomes more complex when people refuse to label the enemy, but without being able to identify one's enemy, we cannot fight them and that is the point. The military are being marginalized in their commitment to the nation state, and re-defined to a "new world order" that supposes a "humanitarian agenda" without "humanitarian" being defined. Thus, social justice wants to prevent discrimination against those that haven't held to Western values for the sake of "social justice"! That is why we cannot define our enemy (as everyone "should" be our friend) nor are we able to defend ourselves against the threat of disorder in our country due to "black lives matter" and that is the most important focus for "social justice" types (but at what expense does one bring about social justice? at the costs of free speech for fear of recrimination and offense and at the costs of more conservative views of justice.)
What if Steve Job's father had not moved here in the '50s? Would America had suffered loss? Yes, but the context in the '50s is not what it is today with the threats of terrorist attacks and the inability to vet these refugees. National security is at stake, so some states, as well as representatives are seeking a way to protect those that live within their domain of power/power base. The President didn't seem interested in his speech, in the terror that the Parisians suffered, nor has he shown much compassion toward military or diplomatic losses, as our President. Yes, the President is Commander in Chief, but America is not a Military State. Yes, the President is Head of State, but not a dictator. Yet, what has been happening in our country? Many are not alerted and concerned over the "state of our nation", and as we are "the people", Americans are wanting change in those that sit in places of authority!
Here is what has happened to EUROPE who have opened their borders to those that don't have Western values and this is what one Dutch politician suggested! I think he has experienced and see the result to his country in allowing the invasion of foreigners that don't assimilate!http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/11/03/dutch-politician-we-must-close-all-mosques-ban-islam/
Some purpose that we cannot discriminate, yet we MUST for national security (and in a larger sense to THINK at all!) People that say if we label something we've made a judgment and that is prejudiced, are CORRECT, as otherwise, we cannot use our OWN brains to determine the course of our life and what our values might be!!! The PC POLICE have grown so powerful that even the President and the Democratic candidates running for office don't want to label the jihadist as Islamic, YET, they themselves have named themselves an ?Islamic State", yet the PResident says we cannot!! The power of the threat has been minimized in the news media, as well as in public statements made by our government officials, like when the President called them a JV team, and that we had contained them!! The Germans were our enemy in WWII yet ONLY 10% of the population were Nazis! Islam is our enemy, yet there are 20% of Islamist that are radical! People are so afraid of offending the "oppresed" that they are going to bring oppression by POLICING every thought, action, and expression we've enjoyed in our free society! It has run rampant in the universities where presidents and professors are intimidated and some have been forced to resign, if not by board by their own sense of shame!! BAD POLICY!! http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-next-time-someone-says-terrorists-dont-represent-islam-show-them-this
Post a Comment