Christian Values Used by Liberals as Justification for What They Do?
Because of the recent many town hall meetings with various members of Congress around the nation and the resultant attendees’ responses to the misinformation handed out to their questions by these congressional members, much newstime discussion has spewed forth justifying both sides of their arguments. In a time where any reference to Christianity is taboo, the liberalites have decided to use the "Christ-card" in support of their arguments. What a surprise! This method is no doubt used because they believe those who disagree with them are mostly from the far right-wing Christian radicals, those people Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has called potential terrorists.
So, what is the "Christ-card" they decided to use? They quote from the Christian New Testament, Romans 13, which discusses the Apostle Paul’s instruction to his readers to be subject to government, to be subservient to the civil powers over them. Paul’s reasoning states authority is God’s and that civil authority is an extension of God’s authority as He has established it. Paul goes on to say if one does not wish to fear authority, then follow the rules established by that authority; otherwise, one risks condemnation upon themselves. One should place himself in subjection and pay taxes because rulers are servants of God and should be compensated for their efforts. This is an excellent excerpt from the Bible to send Christians a message commanding them to obey their own rules as stated and to, therefore, get off the backs of the officials of the elected Congress.
If one continues to read this chapter and pays attention to what is actually said, attuning its message to the rest of God’s Word, there are conditions which temper the surface warnings of such servitude. As the Supreme Governor of the universe, God is the originating source of power. He may assign that power to anyone He desires whether or not person is of God. Many times in the past, God has placed persons in positions of authority to achieve a particular goal, even if that goal was known only to Him. At times, that person is put there as a test to his character and obedience to God, only to find out he may or may not pass that test. At other times, the ruler is indeed chosen by God because of his devotion to God’s will and commandments.
In many nations today, the basic doctrine for civil authority is in the form of a constitution which describes the nation and how members of that nation perform. Those who are given power as civil governor, whether elective or hereditary, have agreed their purpose and authority for governing is based upon the rules set forth in that constitution which promote the best interests of the nation and its people. The people of the nation, having designed and drafted their constitution, are thereby in agreement with its rules and in agreement with the authority of those placed over them as provided by those same rules. Therefore, a mutual pact is made between those governed and the governor. Thus, it can be stated a governor has been placed into power over a people by God’s authority and that governor will administer rule with the blessings of God and the people for each has agreed to the conditions of ruler and ruled according to a series of principles defined by the constitution of that nation. If this is true, there is no ground for opposition or disagreement to the civil authority and attempts at rebellion are in direct conflict with both civil law and God’s law.
Regardless of a ruler’s personal lifestyle or preferred private activities, if they are not in violation to the constitutional rules, the subservient have no legal recourse to oppose his civil authority even though they may be sinful and unlawful to God. The ruler may be a good leader but have a weak moral spirit; or, the opposite, a bad leader with a good moral spirit. His political conduct is under direction of the people, however, and his moral conduct is under God’s.
What if the ruler defaults on this mutual pact and attempts to make changes to the constitutional rules without the consent of those under his authority? What if he has dictated a new direction for the nation which conflicts with the traditional ways without the consent of the people. By acting in such a way, the one in power has dissolved the original pact and his authority is no longer binding because his actions are in conflict with the rules of the constitution he initially agreed to honor. Therefore, rebellion to his governing is justified and in order.
This is exactly how this nation came to be: the people of the colonies which made up America rebelled against the King of England because of his injustices in dealing with them as his subjects. They had the God-given right to do so just as we retain that right today. When our leaders take it upon themselves to decide we are no longer a republic but a democracy and begin to legislate laws and fabricate illegal "executive orders" without our mutual consent, our debt to them is discharged and nullified.
To continue with the subject passage, Paul continues in his letter to the church in Rome in saying they should render to authority that which is due them: "tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." However, he adds: "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." This is the qualifier of his letter. A thing is owed if it is due because the one being paid has earned it; it is due him for his duties in service, providing that service is performed according to rule of law and in love for one’s nation and in God’s Name. If the one in authority has not performed in this manner, nothing is due him except a brotherly love for his soul, for that alone fulfills the law.
A follow-up passage to this argument has been traditionally Matthew 22:21 which says, "Render then the things of Caesar to Caesar and the things of God to God." In verses 16-21, Jesus was asked by the Herodians if it was lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar. Jesus asked for an example coin used typically for the poll-tax and then asked whose likeness and inscription was on it. They answered that it was Caesar. He then told them what to render to whom. To the Christian, all things belong to God and we are merely stewards in charge of His gifts and must return the applicable fruits of our labor to Him which are His in the first place. Nothing belongs to Caesar for they are not his to dictate; but, we are expected to give Caesar what is his. How can this be?
Again, in Matthew, we look at Chapter 17:24-27 in which Jesus and His disciples had arrived at Capernaum where Peter was asked by Jesus, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" Peter answered, "From strangers." Jesus then told him, "Consequently, the sons are exempt. But, lest we give them offense, go to the sea, and throw in a hook and take the first fish that comes up and when you open its mouth, you will find a stater ( a small amount of currency such as a penny). Take that and give it to them for you and Me." What just happened?
Jesus pulled no money from his tunic to pay Caesar’s poll-tax, but "created" the suitable denomination to "render" to the collector at the gate to the city. Jesus stated "sons" are exempt from taxes imposed by Caesar and are not required to render that which is not owed. We are in debt to God alone and "Caesar" is owed nothing other than that which God gives him.