Skip to main content

On the Biblical Mandate to Respect Authority


The SC choir chaplain brought up a passage in 1 Peter at the beginning of this week regarding submission to authority. It led to interesting conversation, and I'd like to reiterate part of that conversation here.

1) It is important to remember that the early churches who passed around these letters had a very practical use for them. The early church could have easily been stomped out had the early Christians been too anti-government. True, the church was persecuted. True, the church did get into trouble with the government. However, remember that the persecution happened for short bursts of time (historically speaking) and only in isolated areas. It was by no means universal persecution. Additionally, when you look at other early Christian documents, you see more injunctions to work with the rulers.

And why not? The early church needed all the support it could get, while not compromising, of course. If they were all outspoken government radicals, they would not have lasted long.

2) With that in mind, I'd like to state that I unequivocally support every man, woman, and child's right to not only speak out against the government, but to practice what Thoreau called Civil Disobedience.

Someone in class mentioned that it's okay to disagree with the government, as long as you don't disrespect the government. Not only is this modifying the passage to your own liking, it's near meaningless. What does it mean to "disagree with respect"? Is calling the president foolish disrespectful? Is calling the president a liar disrespectful? Is calling the president a crook, or a murderer, or immoral disrespectful? Because I know many world leaders who deserve to be called these things. In some cases, I firmly believe that the leader must be taken out of his or her leadership position, violently if necessary (e.g. Hussein).

The definition of respect is shaky, and Christians exploit this shakiness by using the 1 Peter passage to condemn certain protesters while at the same time justifying their own protests. Many Christians would have no problem calling Obama a baby-killer (I've heard it done here at SC) because of his abortion policies. On the same token, I've heard the same people bitch and moan whenever someone calls G.W. Bush a moron because all of a sudden that's violating the 1 Peter passage.

Now, let's put 1 and 2 together. Let's all agree that in our country, we can disagree with our leadership - make fun of, call names, label, whatever - just so we're all on the same playing field. Let's also agree that when a leader is exploiting the people, starving and killing and robbing, etc., that country's people has a right to overthrow the government.

Lastly, set's put some restrictions on our actions. Here are some things that I think we can all agree are unethical:

Slander: As defined by the free dictionary as "A false and malicious statement or report about someone." Keyword: False. No making up things about our presidents. No premature judging. Get your facts straight before exercising your freedom of speech, for crying out loud. It will do the whole country good.

Needless Violence: Violence may have its place, but very rarely. I'm talking Hussein-level baddies. Blatant exploitation and violence against the people on the part of the leader.

If you can think of any other exceptions, please tell me in the comments.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Clarifying question: Do you really believe that the concept of respectful disagreement is "near meaningless" in regard to government? Because that's the foundational principle of democratic societies and the peaceful transfer of power. The reason that the history of regime change is littered with violent coups is that objectors didn't believe in the concept of respecful disagreement--they had to have it THEIR way or no way.

Respectful disagreement says, "I recognize the constitutionally-legitimate position of authority which has been granted this government official, but I still think he is mistaken. Because I believe in the concept of the Rule of Law, I will abide by his policies insofar as they are legally binding, but at the same time I will work through constitutionally-legitimate means (i.e. voting, lawful organization and peaceful protest) for change."

The other option is to demand perfection from our government officials, variously worshiping them if they agree with us (e.g. Mao Zedung), or murdering them if they don't. I think democracy works better.
Unknown said…
Jeremy,

For God's sake, I hope you read the blog post more carefully than to believe that I'm advocating Maoist worship and senseless political assassination.

And although I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, I can't shake the feeling that you're committing a major false dilemma fallacy: that we must either accept and comply with all our leaders' policies or murder them.

You argue as if there is no room for civil disobedience in a peaceful democracy. When the laws infringe on our fundamental rights, I believe they can and should be violated.

The problem with settling the question of obedience with "respectful disagreement" is that the word respect is so arbitrary, it can mean anything (as I have already demonstrated).

I'm all for peaceful transfer of power, dude. I'm all for working through the system. But what happens when the very system becomes corrupt? We can't just sit on our asses and take it, especially when it's making the poor poorer and the sick sicker. It's a moral imperative that we stand up for what's right, even if it leads to disobedience. I think that's more in the spirit of democracy.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
For the sake the discussion, let me try and simplify. Would we both agree on the validity of a "respect" for authority which is defined, at the very least, as an affirmation of and commitment to the constitutional notion of Rule of Law (while acknowledging the occasional exceptional need for conscientious objection)?
Unknown said…
Yeah, I would agree with you, Jeremy. There definitely is a need for Rule of Law. If too many people feel that they are superior to the law, we have major problems. I see what you're saying.

Perhaps what we're both trying to say is that the respect is sometimes misguided. We should respect the notion of Rule of Law rather that heave the respect on the individual governing party.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
That's a helpful consensus. We need more citizens who will think critically about the decisions of governing authorities regardless of their political affiliations, and decide issues based on principle rather than on power--even when it is personally costly. Thanks for the discussion.

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus, Lover of my Soul

An old friend and spiritual mentor of mine left a comment on my last "Religious Conversation" Post . It provoked so much thought that I wanted to share it with everybody, because I know quite a few of my religious friends are reading this, and I know quite a few of you who would make a similar statement. Here it is: There is an element in this conversation that is being overlooked (at least, I presume). There is an aesthetic beauty and, more, an affection, which Steven appears to have for God. This is not illogical; in fact, all human beings exhibit it for something. It may be subjective, and it is not conclusive, but it is completely logical. And I can't imagine an argument that would refute it. It is something like a man saying, "I love my wife. I appreciate her many virtues and charms; I believe her to be the woman most worthy of my affection and lifelong commitment." If I say this and someone were to say to me, "But EVERY man says that of his bride!

The Clink (New Friends)

Each other is all we have. It's no surprise, then, that when we think about the chapters of our lives, those chapters usually begin and end with the beginning and ending of relationships. My current chapter began in July 2016, when I made the move from Philadelphia to Denver. In many ways, it was the fulfillment of a promise made between Peace Corps friends; Carly, Evan, and I spoke often of our desire to live in the same place some day, and after two wonderful years spent with Kyla, it was time for me to join them. The great advantage to this arrangement is that Evan and Carly had been cultivating friends in my absence, so upon my arrival last summer, I was met with a wonderful group of people who had been carefully conditioned by Evan and Carly to like me. Readers of this blog will remember Evan and Carly from my Peace Corps days. They were the closest I had to family for two years, and by the end of our service, we were inseparable. Evan Pappy. Pop-pop. Dilly-dally

Religious Conversation With An Old Friend - Part 2

Keeping with the tradition of posting a religion-related comic before the serious  conversation: Okay, so here we go with letter* #2: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Stephan! Good to hear from you, man! I'm glad you responded to that post, actually. I post those in hopes that my Christian friends will respond. You're one of my Christian friends that can talk about these things without being unreasonable and/or put off. First you say,  Such a list saddens me, because many of those items can be easily explained through actually studying the context (textually & culturally), as well as distinguishing "paradox" from "contradiction". I know exactly what you mean. I'm familiar with many of these explanations. For me, the important thing isn't that there are alleged contradictions in the Bible per se or that there are alleged workarounds; the important point for me