-
Authority Series
Contributed by Michael Stark on Nov 28, 2017 (message contributor)
Summary: Who has authority for faith and practise? The state? The Word? The message explores the continuing tension between government and church.
Though the American colonies were settled by people seeking religious freedom, they did not necessarily wish others who dissented from them to be free. The Anglicans in Virginia were no worse or no better than the Congregationalists in Massachusetts. Baptists held strong convictions concerning freedom of religion and they paid for their convictions with severe persecution. Ultimately, they obtained what they sought.
Perhaps now you will understand the significance of the First Amendment to the American Constitution, the first principle, if you will, of the American Bill of Rights. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably to assembly, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Religion, worship of Almighty God, was the great centre from which other freedoms flowed. Among those freedoms which were both dependent on and supportive of faith and conscience are freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Religious liberty is the first great liberty.
Can it be shown that Paul’s demand for submission is not absolute? Clearly, authorities can abuse their God-given positions. What happens when they abuse those positions, reversing their duty so that they commend those who do evil and punish those who do good? What happens when government commends homosexuality and punishes those who would resist approving of that which is clearly against nature? Does the requirement to be subject to such authorities still stand in such a morally perverse situation? That is the question which confronts conscientious Christians in this day.
The answer to these questions is an emphatic “No!” “The principle is clear. We are to submit [to government authorities] right up to the point where obedience to the state would entail disobedience to God. But if the state commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, then our plain Christian duty is to resist, not to submit, to disobey the state in order to obey God.”
The concept of resisting submission in this instance is usually referred to as civil disobedience. Civil disobedience refers to deliberately disobeying a particular human law because it is contrary to God’s law. Trespass, organising sit-ins, obstructing police in the performance of their duties, may also in certain circumstances be justified. In such cases, the term which should be applied is “civil protest,” since the laws which are being broken in order to publicise the protest are not themselves intrinsically evil.
Black Americans suffered under Jim Crow laws in the southern United States until the civil rights movement of the sixties was galvanised under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King. Prior to these massive demonstrations of civil disobedience, blacks were unable to eat in the same diners as whites. Water fountains were segregated, as were toilets. What was still more intolerable was the fact that the individual’s right to vote was determined by the colour of his skin.