What Kind of Loyalty do we owe the government?

So are you saying that it was wrong to rebel against the Catholic Church during the time of the reformation because after all they were the ruling authority when it came to religious and many other matters. They often went hand in hand and were tied to the state.

 

So what would you have done when ordered to turn in Jews to the 'Authorities' in Hitler's Germany? What would you have done when ordered to burn incense to the Emperor of Rome? What would you have done if drafted to Auschwitz to administer the zyklon b or load the cattle trucks? What would you do if you see a white Cop beating up a black passer by for looking at him? Do you say all these 'authorities' are exactly the 'authoriries' that St Paul had in mind, so have to 'submit to them', or do you refuse to obey their commands if the commands conflict with what you know Christ would dissapprove of?

And you did not answer the question of whether Jesus Christ was actually insulting to a 'God ordained', authority when he called Herod a 'fox', meaning a cunning, coniving, murderous, power hungry, incestuous bastard.
.

 

Paul wrote a general 'rule of thumb' when he said to obey the authorities. Yet Peter told the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:29), "We must obey God rather than men." Jesus had explicitly told the disciples to spread the Gospel everywhere, and the religious authorities were thus countermanded. Thus we see that the 'rule of thumb' cannot be taken as an absolute, for exceptions will arise or exist. The key is this: when we know from the written Word or from the Spirit that we are to do a thing, this overrides what the authorities are telling us to do; but in other instances, we are to obey the authorities (although peaceful means may be used to work toward persuading the authorities or electing better authorities when the situation warrants).

 

The simple way to harmonize the words of the two Apostles are, that St. Paul in talking about authority instituted by God was talking about secular authority to establish laws. In particular he was talking about secular authority to inflict capital crime and execute capital punishment, as something God gave to men, and that Christians should not oppose or subvert the secular rule of law.

St. Peter on the other hand, in obeying God rather than men, was talking about ecclesiastical and spiritual authority. He was addressing the Sanhedrin, those who violated God's spiritual law, not the secular law. It was their spiritual law that they fell in, and that was the one he was calling them to observance of, ignoring the corrupt advice of others around them.

Thus to answer the OP, we owe absolute loyalty to the government in secular matters, but we owe no loyalty whatsoever to the government in ecclesiastical and spiritual matters.

Note, that even in England where the Church is established and the secular/spiritual are mixed, the Crown still has no power in ecclesiastical and theological domain, or to administer the sacraments, or to ordain, or perform confirmations, or anything at all which belongs to the jurisdiction of the Church.

 

I think you will find that the ruling sovereign is the supreme head on earth of the Church of England.

The Queen has the power to appoint Lords, who can then sit in Parliament, the upper house in Britain's legislative system.

The Crown Appointments Commission begins to oversee the selection of a new Archbishop of Canterbury. The Commission chooses two names and sends them to the Prime Minister for approval. If the Prime Minister likes the choices, one name is sent to the Queen.

Most other 'spiritual' decisions of the Church of England are taken by Synod, which comprises, Bishops, Clergy and Laity.

The Sanhedrin was neither specifically 'spiritual' nor 'secular'. Israel and later Judah was a Theocracy which requested a Sovereign, (much to God's displeasure). There was no distinction between secular and spiritual authority. Under Roman law, that became a problem for Jews which eventually resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter was declaring a higher allegience to BOTH secular AND spiritual authorities. His authority came straight from God, through Christ. Christ's command to Peter, the Apostles and all his disciples including US, to preach and live the Gospel, (the great commission), overrides all secular and spiritual power on earth.

Do we think that the Government of the Soviet Union 1945-1991, Communist China or Japan 1930-45, were ordained by God?

If so, an enormous effort was expended upon opposing all three by your own nation and many others, against the will (presumably by your reasoning), of GOD who some presume installed them.

Should they all have done that?

That is a question I would prefer us not to ignore.
.

 

They were not the rightful authority. Romans 13 is clearly talking about secular authority, not pretended ecclesiastical authority.

The answer is right there in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

"Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

I am not biblically required to turn in those about to be unjustly murdered, I am not biblically required to worship the Emperor, I am not biblically required to kill the infirm, I am not biblically required to condone unjust (and illegal) racialized police brutality. In fact I am biblically required to do the opposite. For instance in the Scriptures, we see plenty of civil disobedience from God's people (ex the Egyptian midwives).

However beyond refusing to do what is evil when ordered to (i.e the examples you give), I am required by God to follow the law as the Scriptures clearly say that authority is instituted by God (ex. Romans 13, Christ's dialogue with Pilate). We are called to live righteously and then obediently. However the former is not an excuse to violent rebellion, disobeying every law I personally disagree with, etc... Additionally since Christ is the font of all earthly authority, He call call His wicked servants (ex. Herod) whatever He likes. We are not the font of all earthly authority and thus cannot.

(And yes, any Christian would have to believe, for reasons known only to God, that various evil authorities have been instituted by God for His sovereign purpose. We see this in a multitude of Scriptures where God raises up an evil nation as a means of punishment or divine Providence. He uses amoral men in the form of Roman governors, He uses bloody and conniving Jehu to humble God's enemies, He uses foreign, pagan nations to chastise Israel.)

 

She is only the governor. The head of the Church (in heaven and earth) is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, the eternal unbegotten Logos of the Trinity. We do not believe in vicars of Christ, such as what the Pope was.

The ruling sovereign has never once tried, or been allowed to, administer the sacraments, or to ordain, or to administer confirmations, or to excommunicate. The monarch functions like all Christian monarchs have always functioned, from Constantine on. She oversees the church and has secular power over it, allows the installation of bishops (although is never the one to actually consecrate them), and may even call church councils, but her ecclesiastical authority ends there.

 

The default position for the Christian is obedience to the state. None the less there are times when disobedience is a Christian response.

Acts 5:27-32
When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.’ But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than any human authority. The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, so that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.’​

Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and many others including both Peter and Paul, have found themselves in a position where disobedience to secular authority was for then to right course of action. Yet for each of them this was not the default position.

 

There are laws that are violation of God's law. There are such things as natural law, that is ordained by God, and any authority that transgress that does not have to be obeyed as it goes into what you mentioned above. Even sometimes as the best of all bad options violent rebellion just might be called for. But to the point that the Catholic Church was not secular authority but ecclesiastical authority that was a line that was often blurred and in many many instances they were the secular authority or in tandem with other arms of secular authority. In fact the seperation of church and state is an Enlightenment thought that you so earlier decried.

 

But one thing I have learned not to do is argue with a staunch reformed person so I am going to drop the conversation.

 

Even at the height of its power, Rome never claimed to be a secular power over England. Furthermore, the Scripture does not speak of obedience to a bishop (overseer) in Rome, a position that was extremely new by the time the last Epistle was written. The Scriptures - Old and New - do speak of the Christian's duty to the state. Like @Botolph mentions there may be cases on the margin. But the standard mode should be obedience.

 

We do seem to be in near agreement but I would not say there may be cases on the margin there are cases historically right in the middle of life that should not be followed. But we do agree the standard is obedience. A clear example of a possible violation that could come up in the future would be something a long the lines of hte government deciding for "safety reasons" that it needs its citizens to install software so they could follow what we do on the internet. That is a violations of God's natural law of liberty for people. We are under no obligation to allow such or follow such a decree

 

Arguably the rule of the AntiChrist will embrace both secular and religious spheres of influence, (at least presumably in his line of reasoning). Do we assume then that God requires subjection to the AntiChrist because God has appointed him? Is he an exception, if there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have all been instituted by God.

Wouldn't that mean that those who are submissively obedient to the AntiChrist's rule are actually doing God's will, according to Romans 13?

Is there no one else in here who finds that concept disturbingly confusing and rather ambiguous?
.

 

And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Are we to believe that God Himself gives power to the beast? That God Himself sanctions a war against His Own Saints and allows the 'authority' to overcome them? That God himself installs an 'authority' to blaspheme God's name, His tabernacle and all that dwell in heaven?

If ALL authorities are truly installed by God, (in the literal way assumed by many Rom.13 'believers'), then if God Himself installs an 'authority' at war with Himself and His own Saints, how can God's House stand? Mark 3:23-26. Jesus himself makes the point that even Satan isn't that stupid.
.

 

Do I detect a severe bout of cognative dissonance being suffered by the Rom.13 adherants trying to reconcile the notion of the Anti-Christ being truly installed and empowered by God, being as it says that ALL powers without exception are God ordained and instituted?

Better not think about it then, if it causes you a problem. Just ignore it.

That may solve your dissonance problem but does nothing to solve the theological problem though.
.

 

Tiffy seems to fail to note that literally every person stating traditional Christian doctrines of obedience has stated repeatedly that commands to sin are to be disobeyed as the same Saints Paul and Peter who wrote how Christians need to be obedient also suffered time in prison for refusing to apostatize. Any hypothetical based on a potential interpretation of difficult passages in a book of biblical prophecy has little to do with our Christian duty in our every day life.

 

I have no qualms at all with Christians refusing to comply with 'Authority' when that 'Authority' is demanding compliance which would require severe compromising of Christian ethical practice. Christ would have, and did do the same with respect to sabbath breaking laws which his disciples were accused of breaking. Luke 6:1-5. This was not even an extreme example of non-compliance, such as refusal to operate a Nazi Gas chamber might be.

The Theological issue is not whether it is right to disobey illegitimate authority, or even if Christians should be disobedient to an authority under certain circumstances, (they should - Christ himself and his Apostles were), but rather whether ALL authority is instituted by God.

If All authority IS instituted by God then God must be going to institute and give power to the Anti-Christ, (The Beast) of Revelation, which is 'granted power over the saints'. The text which reveals this however also reveals that the 'Power' is granted by the dragon, not God.

So can God ever be in league with Satan? I think not. So the Anti-Christ's power cannot be God given and scripture tells us it is not. It comes from Satan, the dragon. So not All power and authority, according to scripture, comes from God.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Rom.13:1-3.

Is the Anti-Christ not a terror to good conduct then? Are those who resist him resisting what God has appointed? And whose judgement do the Saintly victims of the Beast incur? Surely not God's. They are God's Saints and:

Precious in the sight of the Lord
is the death of his saints. Ps.116:15.

.

 

Here is an interesting article of what Saint Chrysostom thought on church and state,

https://pemptousia.com/2016/08/political-authority-according-to-saint-john-chrysostom-1/

https://pemptousia.com/2016/08/political-authority-according-to-saint-john-chrysostom-2/

He discusses briefly what he thought of unjust rulers and how we should respond as Christians.

 

Since you quote Paul I will leave it to you to argue against the Apostle and the Holy Scriptures as he and they say it better than I ever could.

 

I might not actually be quoting Paul though. We will both only know for certain when we can ask him for ourselves, if it was he who actually originally dictated those words to his scribe.

If Paul didn't write it though, I am not arguing against Paul's words, neither is the author of Revelation. Both of us would be arguing with some unknown, unnamed interpolator of Paul's letter to the Romans.