The American Christian's Challenge

As Christians in America, we have a unique challenge with regard to the command in Romans to “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” We live in a culture where the people in political office were selected by us.

Until Saul, God’s people lived in a theocracy. Saul, David, and Solomon were human kings chosen by God. Since then God has stepped out of the direct choosing, apparently opting instead to turn all things to His good, regardless of how a given leader was put in place. 

Unless I’m mistaken, the only form(s) of human government mentioned at length in the Bible were monarchs (and perhaps judges and prophets, depending on how one defines government).

Despite the fact that, by the time of Jesus, democracy was well established in Greece, the Bible makes no mention of this as a form of government sanctioned by God.

In America, democracy takes the form of a democratic republic - representatives are chosen by the people to hold the various offices. This is true of legislators and of the president. So, the president is not the authority in the traditional sense. He is selected to represent the people by the people, themselves.

Add to this the fact that there are three branches of government, which are intended through checks and balances to be of equal power, then it can not be argued that the president is the leader or ruler.

As Lincoln pointed out, we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It’s difficult to imagine a more stark contrast to a monarchy, where the royal “we” is frequently invoked and it’s understood that the king or queen IS the country - basically relegating the populace to vassals of the monarch (which is, in fact, the legal situation).

So, if we are (Note: not “if we have”; but “if we are”) a government of the people, by the people, and for the people . . . if the people who hold political office (as public servants, by the way) are there to represent the people . . . even assuming we all agree on what it means to be subject to the governing authorities . . . then the question becomes, “To whom do we owe this subjection?”

The Masculine Directive

For years I’ve wrestled with the Christian concept of male headship of the home and family. I’m sure it’s a combination of the time and the culture in which I was raised, along with the confusion that most people have regarding equality. (Equality is not sameness. We have equal value, but different roles - otherwise, there’d be no reason for different people.)

Until now, I’ve reluctantly “accepted” that it’s the role of the man to be in headship of his household. Frankly, I didn’t like the idea at all, but resolved that if that’s what God directed, then I should accept it.

Then, recently, my 14 year old son asked my wife a question that, at first, might seem to be unrelated, but proved otherwise. It was around Christmas, and he had been thinking about Jesus, in general, and the Christmas story, in particular. He asked, “Do you think Mary knew that Jesus was born without sin?”

When I heard this, my first thought was, “Of course she did. She was a virgin, and yet conceived. The angel Gabriel told her Jesus would be called the Son of the Highest.” Then I realized two things. Gabriel didn’t actually come right out and say that Jesus would be born without sin. In my opinion, it was certainly implied, but maybe not understood. The second thing I realized was that Jesus actually told the disciples things which they nevertheless seemed surprised at when it was borne out. So, maybe she didn’t know. Good question.

This made me ask, “Was Jesus actually born without sin?” I know that Catholic doctrine says that even Mary was born (or even conceived) without sin, so therefore, Jesus was also. I’m not Catholic, and, while I don’t wish to argue the point, I don’t subscribe to this doctrine.

But if the argument is made that Jesus, as well as being fully God, was fully human - and was in fact born from a human mother’s womb - how can it be argued, being as all men are born with original sin, that he was born without sin?

This proved to be a fascinating study for me. I’ve since heard other people talk in similar terms, so I know it’s not original, but it was new to me at the time.

Jesus was born of a woman’s seed - as prophesied in Genesis 3:15. Every other time in the Bible, when it talks about seed, it’s always a man’s seed. That makes sense, as it’s the man who carries the seed. So, why would it speak about a woman’s seed? At first glance, it doesn’t make sense. Until you examine the circumstances of Jesus’ birth.

Jesus was born of a woman’s seed - or stock, if you will - He was born as a baby to a woman. However, He was NOT the result of a man’s seed. There was nothing of Joseph, physically, in Jesus. So, the prophecy makes sense. He was born of a woman’s seed. He was still human, so wasn’t He born with original sin?

No! And this is where it ties in with the subject of male headship. The sin nature resulting from disobedience to God was not carried in Eve (or the woman). It’s was carried in Adam (the man). It was Adam to whom God gave the command to not eat of the tree. Eve wasn’t even created yet, at that point.

Yes, Eve was aware of the command. We know that Adam passed along the command, because she repeats it to the serpent. But if you read Genesis, you’ll see that it was Adam - and only Adam - that God commanded. He was the responsible party. From the beginning, God intended the man to be in headship over his wife - and in SUBMISSION to God! He disobeyed god and bore the punishment by having a sin nature. The reason all humans have a sin nature is because all humans are descendants of Adam. All except Jesus. Jesus has no connection to Adam other than through Mary’s ancestors - but, while the mother may carry the sin nature, she does not pass it along. The father passes it along. Which is why it’s so critical to understand that Jesus was not born of an earthly father.

So, it’s actually for the same reason that we know that Jesus did not have a sin nature, that we also know that God has designed male headship. Adam was the responsible party, not Eve.

To be completely honest, I’m still not sure I LIKE the idea, but now, as well as accepting it, I also understand it.

Civil Obedience, Part 2

Back in March, I posted an opinion about civil obedience and the Christian. It was an opinion that runs somewhat contrary to what is currently the accepted view - particularly with respect to Romans 13:1-7.

About three weeks ago I ran across a sermon given by Jonathan Mayhew in 1750 - a full quarter-century before the American Revolution. Mayhew was a clergyman who served at Boston’s Old West Church for 29 years before he died. In this sermon, he says things that sound very familiar to what I said. I took a bit more of a general stand regarding authority where he takes a somewhat specific stand against a particular ruler, but the argument he uses is almost exactly the same (perhaps better worded). I won’t reprint the whole sermon, but what follows below is a relevant portion:

_____________________________________________________________________

Render therefore to all their dues; tribute, to whom tribute is due; custom, to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honor, to whom honor. Here the apostle sums up what he had been saying concerning the duty of subjects to rulers. And his argument stands thus - “Since magistrates who execute their office well, are common benefactors to society; and may, in that respect, be properly stiled (sic) the ministers and ordinance of God; and since they are constantly employed in the service of the public; it becomes you to pay them tribute and custom; and to reverence, honor, and submit to, them in the execution of their respective offices.” This is apparently good reasoning. But does this argument conclude for the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence, honor and obedience, to such persons as (although they bear the title of rulers) use all their powers to hurt and injure the public: such as are not God’s ministers, but Satan’s? such as do not take care of, and attend upon, the public interest, but their own, to the ruin of the public? that is, in short, to such as have no natural and just claim at all to tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience?

It is to be hoped that those who have any regard to the apostle’s character as an inspired writer, or even as a man of common understanding, will not represent him as reasoning in such a loose incoherent manner; and drawing conclusions which have not the least relation to his premises.

For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office.”

Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favour of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e. such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not intitled (sic) to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle.

____________________________________________________________________