How Christians are being deceived by secular authority.
I believe there is a great deception, or ignorance, out there among Christian believers who are genuinely
passionate about the world and what it looks like to speak truth to power while living out what we believe
the Word of God says about submitting to secular authority.
passionate about the world and what it looks like to speak truth to power while living out what we believe
the Word of God says about submitting to secular authority.
-What does it look like to simultaneously submit to and stand up to an authority who is threatening liberty?
-What does it look like to speak truth to an authority that is threatening liberty, and yet be submitted?
-How do we fight against a corrupt culture that uses the government to change mores, and yet be
submitted?
submitted?
-How do we question authority, and yet be submitted?
First,I want to say you can do all of these things and be submitted to authority.
See, I think the modern church has inadvertently flirted with quasi-cultish thought processes such as if
authority figures say “x” or “y”, it is a sin to challenge that line of thought. I know that “quasi-cultish” will
offend and turn off some readers, but it is unfortunately accurate. There is NO earthly authority that
scripture commands us to accept without question or challenge. None. Daniel challenged a king, so did
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Moses, Elijah and this list goes on.
authority figures say “x” or “y”, it is a sin to challenge that line of thought. I know that “quasi-cultish” will
offend and turn off some readers, but it is unfortunately accurate. There is NO earthly authority that
scripture commands us to accept without question or challenge. None. Daniel challenged a king, so did
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Moses, Elijah and this list goes on.
Let me give you this analogy: your heart has one throne. A kingdom has only one King. A King is the only
authority that does not allow challenges to decrees and commands. A King occupies a throne. So, close
your eyes and tell me, who is sitting on that throne? Because that is the only authority that you must not
question...ever. I can tell you who sits on mine, only you can tell who sits on yours. Therefore, ALL other
authority is within the realm of fallibility and fair game to be challenged (respectfully) and questioned.
authority that does not allow challenges to decrees and commands. A King occupies a throne. So, close
your eyes and tell me, who is sitting on that throne? Because that is the only authority that you must not
question...ever. I can tell you who sits on mine, only you can tell who sits on yours. Therefore, ALL other
authority is within the realm of fallibility and fair game to be challenged (respectfully) and questioned.
Let me back this up with scripture. Many will quote scriptures on submission to authority like:
Hebrews 13:17, Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13, etc.
Hebrews 13:17, Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13, etc.
Here’s where those fall short: we are not ruled by absolute rulers anymore. We are a Democratic Republic
who elect men and women to go and represent We The People and serve We The People, not the other
way around. So, to challenge lawmakers and officials who occupy elected offices within the United States
of America does not, in my humble opinion, fall into any of these categories. We have one authority which
I believe falls into the definition of the authorities spoken of in those scriptures and that is the supreme law
of the land, the Constitution. If the public servants who are supposed to work for us deviate from that
supreme authority then we are obligated to challenge them and to reign in their abuses of their offices.
who elect men and women to go and represent We The People and serve We The People, not the other
way around. So, to challenge lawmakers and officials who occupy elected offices within the United States
of America does not, in my humble opinion, fall into any of these categories. We have one authority which
I believe falls into the definition of the authorities spoken of in those scriptures and that is the supreme law
of the land, the Constitution. If the public servants who are supposed to work for us deviate from that
supreme authority then we are obligated to challenge them and to reign in their abuses of their offices.
I will go a step further and use examples of the only man in history I try to model my life after, Jesus Christ.
Not only did he challenge the authorities of his day he did it with a bullhorn on a street corner. I have
heard retorts like, “well, you’re not Jesus.” No, I’m not. But I am his servant, and I do attempt to mold my
life in his image. So, I see Jesus exemplifying that there are times for which challenging authority is
permissible, even a duty.
Not only did he challenge the authorities of his day he did it with a bullhorn on a street corner. I have
heard retorts like, “well, you’re not Jesus.” No, I’m not. But I am his servant, and I do attempt to mold my
life in his image. So, I see Jesus exemplifying that there are times for which challenging authority is
permissible, even a duty.
Examples:
-Healing on the Sabbath in violation of Jewish law (Luke 13:10-17) (John 5:1-18)
-Allowing his disciples to get food on the Sabbath in violation of Jewish law (Mark 2:23-28)
-Calling the Pharisees and Sadducees white washed tombs and vipers (not very respectful, I'd say)
(Matthew 23:27-28)
(Matthew 23:27-28)
See here’s the problem. We take Jesus’ sermon on the mount and all of its beauty and create a box within
which we believe Christians must play and we limit ourselves to that one sermon. What a sad lie the church
has believed. I believe Dorothy Sayers put it best when she said,
which we believe Christians must play and we limit ourselves to that one sermon. What a sad lie the church
has believed. I believe Dorothy Sayers put it best when she said,
“The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused him of being a bore - on the contrary,
they thought him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering
personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have efficiently pared the claws of the
Lion of Judah, certified him "meek and mild" and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale
curates and pious old ladies.
(emphasis mine)
We have de-clawed the Lion of Judah and made him a house pet of pious old ladies...tell me Dorothy is
wrong.
wrong.
We have taken very true aspects of the nature of God, kindness and love, and used them to define the
totality of the church. We forget that our God is also a “warrior” (Exodus 15:3). We try to eliminate
uncomfortable aspects of God’s nature because they do not fit the caricature western culture has created
in our children's bibles and Sunday School felt boards. We create a false god. God is to be worshiped in
“spirit and truth” (John 4:24). “Truth” means His totality. We cannot worship God in truth if we do not
accept the totality of his character.
totality of the church. We forget that our God is also a “warrior” (Exodus 15:3). We try to eliminate
uncomfortable aspects of God’s nature because they do not fit the caricature western culture has created
in our children's bibles and Sunday School felt boards. We create a false god. God is to be worshiped in
“spirit and truth” (John 4:24). “Truth” means His totality. We cannot worship God in truth if we do not
accept the totality of his character.
Is He completely good? Yes.
Is He completely safe? No.
What does all this have to do with earthly authority? Everything. We must be able to define roles
appropriately in order for them to have meaning. I feel very strongly that the American church has a gross
misunderstanding of the definition of authority within a Constitutional Republic. Should we ALL respect
and defer to the authority of the offices that are created by the Constitution which reigns as supreme law
over our country? Absolutely. However, when those occupying the offices created under the institution of
government established by said Constitution have moved outside of the proper roles and limitations of
their given authorities, they have given reason enough to challenge, question and even rebel as our
Founders did in 1776.
appropriately in order for them to have meaning. I feel very strongly that the American church has a gross
misunderstanding of the definition of authority within a Constitutional Republic. Should we ALL respect
and defer to the authority of the offices that are created by the Constitution which reigns as supreme law
over our country? Absolutely. However, when those occupying the offices created under the institution of
government established by said Constitution have moved outside of the proper roles and limitations of
their given authorities, they have given reason enough to challenge, question and even rebel as our
Founders did in 1776.
I consistently challenge occupants of elected offices who are to serve the public with powers limited by
the Constitution. Does this contradict my convictions as a Christian to abide by mandates about authority
in scripture?
the Constitution. Does this contradict my convictions as a Christian to abide by mandates about authority
in scripture?
Not even a little bit.
God is not a lap cat for old ladies. And he has not called his people to be slaves to any man-made
government, least of all one limited by its own laws.
government, least of all one limited by its own laws.
So, I will continue to question boldly. I will continue to stand tall, and I will not submit to something
because I’m simply told to, or expected to...and I beg you not to either.
because I’m simply told to, or expected to...and I beg you not to either.
“But where, say some, is the King of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above” - Thomas Paine
We are citizens, not subjects. Citizens question their government, subjects bow to them. Americans were
never expected to, nor should we ever, bow to our government...ever.
never expected to, nor should we ever, bow to our government...ever.
The first time the newly recognized United States of America sent a representative in the form of John
Adams to the King of England, the reception was awkward and tense. Mr. Adams was guided in the
proper protocol for meeting the King: how to enter, how to bow, how to never turn your back, etc, etc.
However, when the time came to be announced, Mr. Adams did those things but he walked to the king as
an equal, not a subject, as a representative of another country and looked the king directly in the eye.
Could this have been seen as a sign of even more rebellion from those nasty, ungrateful colonialist from
across the ocean? Sure. And I’m sure it was taken that way. Was Mr. Adams justified in his actions,
absolutely. And it set the tone for how Americans for all time should approach those in authority.
Respectfully, but equally.
Adams to the King of England, the reception was awkward and tense. Mr. Adams was guided in the
proper protocol for meeting the King: how to enter, how to bow, how to never turn your back, etc, etc.
However, when the time came to be announced, Mr. Adams did those things but he walked to the king as
an equal, not a subject, as a representative of another country and looked the king directly in the eye.
Could this have been seen as a sign of even more rebellion from those nasty, ungrateful colonialist from
across the ocean? Sure. And I’m sure it was taken that way. Was Mr. Adams justified in his actions,
absolutely. And it set the tone for how Americans for all time should approach those in authority.
Respectfully, but equally.
