I was wondering when someone would notice that I've skipped the Sermon on the Mount — which is where these discussions usually begin. It's for a reason.

The SOTM is so pithy we all tend to read our biases into the words spoken (consider the verses regarding divorce, for example). Therefore, I think you have to sort through the narrative of scripture to see where the SOTM fits.

After all, Jesus said,

(Mat 5:17) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

So, anyway, if the Lord gives me the ability and energy, I'll be getting there.

You wrote:
“I can’t imagine that God meant for his children to allow non-Christians to risk their lives to defend Christians. It would seem very unfair for the Christians to let others do their dirty work for them.”

I don’t expect the military to defend me. I expect God to raise me from the dead because He promised to. Whether He decides to spare/defend my life and through whatever means is up to Him. But I don’t believe I’m entitled to it.

You wrote:
“Either we are to leave doing God’s will for government to unbelievers, who don’t know God’s will, or else we are to participate in government so that government comes closer to being what God meant for it to be.”

Is it the case that God can only achieve His purposes through believers? Where did God say that the government must be made up of believers in order for Him to use that government as an agent of His wrath to punish evildoers? It seems God demonstrated numerous times throughout history that He can use pagan governments to get what He wants out of governments.

You wrote:
“I’ve seen both kinds of government. I fail to see any advantage in a Godless government in which Christians refuse to participate. Why would God tell us that the government is his agent and yet we, the body of Christ on earth, refuse to be involved in the doing of God’s will?”

Pharaoh was God’s agent being used to accomplish God’s will. But arguably any righteous person would not have been permitted to do what Pharaoh was doing. Just because someone is being used by God doesn’t mean they are performing actions which are morally permissible (or morally permissible for everyone).

Regarding our disagreements about lobbying: Not sure I have much more to add except to once again point to the example of the early church. They most certainly took on their work themselves. I don’t see where they attempted to include government in that work.

–Guy

While we are guilty, while we are the oppressor, the attacker, the taker, Jesus steps into the gulf to receive the death blow that we ourselves deliver (to ourselves) as the ultimate example of how to treat one's enemy.

We aren't called to solve the injustices in the world, or even in our own lives. We are called to suffer with the victims. We are called to take the death blow on their behalf. The judges and kings, the writing of Paul and John, have to be understood from Jesus' example, not the other way around.

Peace and Love, yall!

Adam

Thanks so much for addressing my questions. I'm sure that you're shocked that I have more to say.

(1) On the first point, I still disagree. The Old Testament is not there to teach us about governments. It's about God's covenant and promises with Israel. No government today is in a covenant relationship with God. We Christians, God's kingdom, are in a covenant with him. We learn about how to manage our kingdom, not how to manage Portugal or Mexico.

(2) About the monarchies, I still argue that they didn't work (I guess "never" is a bit strong). Look at the 70,000 that died when David took the census, the terrible suffering that came from the civil wars under his reign. Look at Solomon's idolatry and where it led the nation. Did good things come out of those times? Yes, in spite of the kings themselves.

(3) No, my reference to Abraham was not about denouncing and opposing injustice. The context was about Abraham intervening militarily. That was done as part of his family relationship. Abraham could have been the policeman of the Middle East, using his status with God to roam the area eradicating all wrong. He didn't. He raised an army once, when his own family was attacked. Along the way he helped the others that had been taken, but we don't see him setting off to fight a battle that doesn't include his family. Why is that important? It reinforces what we see in the rest of the Old Testament: God's people were not "justice warriors" that roamed from nation to nation imposing their version of peace. Warfare in the Old Testament does not justify what is done today.

(4) You didn't particularly address the Revelation question, in my opinion. In the only examples we have of Christians in the New Testament dealing with unjust, oppressive governments, those Christians follow Jesus' example rather than using worldly methods. Jesus conquered by dying on the Cross and calls on his followers to have the courage to overcome evil the same way. The book of Revelation is the perfect time for God to lay out a blueprint for social change, political involvement, military action. And he does lay out a blueprint, just not one that most American Christians want to follow.

Might I add that Romans 13 deserves a lot of study. If we try to apply that to all governments at all times throughout history, we will have to decide that Paul was wrong or the martyrs (and Jesus and several apostles) were wrongdoers.

Thanks for letting me have my say!

Grace and peace,
Tim Archer