Govt. a minister of God regarding Christians being Non Violent

[Boll Weevil]

For those who believe a Christian is justified in fighting for their country; how do you reconcile that you would be fighting against God's minister? Romans 13:1-7 states that the governing authority is a minister of God. Going to battle or war is going against another governing authority which is God's minister. How could this be justifiable for a Christian to fight against other Christians and another minister of God?

 

[Oeste]

If you are participating in a government sanctioned war, you are not only fighting against God’s minister but you are also fighting with God’s minister.

The key point to remember here is that although the government is a minister of God it doesn’t necessarily mean that government is godly. Each Christian must decide whether to follow their government into war.

For example, if the government calls on us to join the army so we can kill Muslims, Australians, or to make the country rich by grabbing the oil fields of Saudi Arabia I would be extremely hesitant to join its endeavor. But if the government calls on me to defend my fellow citizens, the citizens of an ally, or those who are in distress through no fault of their own, I would likely agree.

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh no! Romans 13:1-7 !

Better rethink my argument!

 

[DavidFirth]

What about, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Does that not apply?

 

[Valjean]

So wars are good guys fighting good guys. The opposing soldiers are both doing the right thing, everyone wears the white hat, and God is on both sides.

 

[Oeste]

What about, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Does that not apply?

Absolutely!

So if we don't want to be picked on, we shouldn't pick on anyone. But if we are picked on and wish someone would step up or step in then we should be willing to do the same.

The golden rule still applies.

 

[Oeste]

So wars are good guys fighting good guys. The opposing soldiers are both doing the right thing, everyone wears the white hat, and God is on both sides.

Probably not both sides. When your children fight, whose side are you on? You'd rather they resolve things amicably. But if one of them is picked on (through no fault of their own) then you'd probably expect the other child to stick up for their sibling.

 

[DavidFirth]

Probably not both sides. When your children fight, whose side are you on? You'd rather they resolve things amicably. But if one of them is picked on (through no fault of their own) then you'd probably expect the other child to stick up for their sibling.

But the TOE teaches us Survival of the Fittest. That means we can kill each other like scorpions until the most fit people survive. Isn't that wonderful?

 

[Valjean]

Probably not both sides. When your children fight, whose side are you on? You'd rather they resolve things amicably. But if one of them is picked on (through no fault of their own) then you'd probably expect the other child to stick up for their sibling.

My point is, when one minister of God orders his people to fight the people of another minister of God, who's right? Is God schizophrenic? Why is he fighting Himself?
If leaders were really God's representatives I'd expect them all to be in perfect agreement with each other.

 

[Glaurung]

For those who believe a Christian is justified in fighting for their country; how do you reconcile that you would be fighting against God's minister?

By noting that I'm only subject to my own country and only in so far as those who govern that country act in accordance to natural and moral law.

If leaders were really God's representatives I'd expect them all to be in perfect agreement with each other.

All societies are called to conduct themselves within accordance to moral law, and in so far as they do so those who govern society are as such God's minsters. However, being called to towards an ideal and adopting that ideal are two different things. It's not at all implied by the quoted passage that all authorities will actually behave legitimately. And Catholic tradition makes it clear when secular authority is at odds with moral law it isn't to be obeyed. A famous Catholic maxim states "Lex iniusta non est lex." (An unjust law is no law at all).

 

[Valjean]

All societies are called to conduct themselves within accordance to moral law, and in so far as they do so those who govern society are as such God's minsters. However, being called to towards an ideal and adopting that ideal are two different things. It's not at all implied by the quoted passage that all authorities will actually behave legitimately. And Catholic tradition makes it clear when secular authority is at odds with moral law it isn't to be obeyed. A famous Catholic maxim states "Lex iniusta non est lex." (An unjust law is no law at all).

I'm individually responsible for my own actions. My conscience is the only authority.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What about, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Does that not apply?

And if I'm under attack and need assistance, I'd want help.

But the TOE teaches us Survival of the Fittest.

But God's Word tells us anyone the author doesn't like should die horribly.

That means we can kill each other like scorpions until the most fit people survive. Isn't that wonderful?

The least fit people usually aren't the ones on the battlefield anyway. They are bunkered down like the world will fall off its axis if anything happens to them, like a paper cut ...

 

[Glaurung]

I'm individually responsible for my own actions.

Yep.

My conscience is the only authority.

That will depend on how that conscience is informed. Human beings are very good at rationalising. Thus I cannot in good conscience embrace individualistic subjectivism.

 

[Valjean]

Yep.


That will depend on how that conscience is informed. Human beings are very good at rationalising. Thus I cannot in good conscience embrace individualistic subjectivism.

You cannot abdicate moral responsibility, though you may try. No government or captain can take your sins upon himself.
It may be easy and convenient to place yourself in the hands of another, but historically these tools are badly used -- and you're still morally responsible for your actions.

Nationality is an accident of birth, and what government/gang/warlord holds control of the region you inhabit is an accident of history. The 'government' of your region has no claim on you -- no claim of allegiance, no claim of service, no claim of conscience. You are born and remain a free moral agent.

 

[Glaurung]

You cannot abdicate moral responsibility, though you may try. No government or captain can take your sins upon himself.
It may be easy and convenient to place yourself in the hands of another, but historically these tools are badly used -- and you're still morally responsible for your actions.

I don't understand where you are trying to go with this. If there's one thing my faith teaches it is our personal accountability to God and our judgement after death. Christianity does not teach mindless obedience to civil power, but the necessity of civil power and the due obedience owed to it. You obey the law don't you?

Nationality is an accident of birth, and what government/gang/warlord holds control of the region you inhabit is an accident of history. The 'government' of your region has no claim on you -- no claim of allegiance, no claim of service, no claim of conscience. You are born and remain a free moral agent.

Except they do. Break the law in any given region and you can be justly punished by those with the authority to do so in that region. (The traffic laws are not mere suggestions for example, nor is it a mere request if you get summoned for jury duty). However, civil power is to be checked by moral and natural law. If I were ordered to do something intrinsically immoral then I am obligated to refuse even onto death.

 

[Valjean]

I don't understand where you are trying to go with this. If there's one thing my faith teaches it is our personal accountability to God and our judgement after death. Christianity does not teach mindless obedience to civil power, but the necessity of civil power and the due obedience owed to it. You obey the law don't you?

I obey reasonable laws -- traffic laws, anti theft laws, &c -- but if the civil authority tells me to do something immoral I defer to conscience.

Except they do. Break the law in any given region and you can be justly punished by those with the authority to do so in that region. (The traffic laws are not mere suggestions for example, nor is it a mere request if you get summoned for jury duty). However, civil power is to be checked by moral and natural law. If I were ordered to do something intrinsically immoral then I am obligated to refuse even onto death.

Break the law and you may be punished, but it won't necessarily be justly.
I think we're actually in agreement here. I obey moral laws and disobey immoral ones. I don't acknowledge the authority of civic leaders. I obey their laws when they're reasonable and moral, and feel free to ignore or even oppose them when they're not.
There is no moral obligation to obey an "intrinsically immoral" law. " Just following orders" won't cut it.

 

[Glaurung]

Break the law and you may be punished, but it won't necessarily be justly.

By just I mean that it is legitimate for civil authority to punish criminality. Assuming of course, the criminality being punished is in fact criminality and not mere dissent.

I think we're actually in agreement here. I obey moral laws and disobey immoral ones. I don't acknowledge the authority of civic leaders. I obey their laws when they're reasonable and moral, and feel free to ignore or even oppose them when they're not.

Indeed, I think we've been talking past each other rather than truly disagreeing.

My position is that society needs rules to function and like it or not somebody has to be empowered to enforce those rules. I am no worshipper of the state though, my Christianity doesn't allow it. Moral law trumps civil law.

There is no moral obligation to obey an "intrinsically immoral" law. " Just following orders" won't cut it.

I have explicitly stated as such in previous posts.

 

[arthra]

For those who believe a Christian is justified in fighting for their country; how do you reconcile that you would be fighting against God's minister? Romans 13:1-7 states that the governing authority is a minister of God. Going to battle or war is going against another governing authority which is God's minister. How could this be justifiable for a Christian to fight against other Christians and another minister of God?

Thanks for posting "Boll Weevil"

To me one of the best proponents of the Gospel of Peace and Nonviolence was Leo Tolstoy. I post here some of his essays on the subject:

"The Kingdom of God Is Within You" by graf Leo Tolstoy

 

[Boll Weevil]

Thanks for posting "Boll Weevil"

To me one of the best proponents of the Gospel of Peace and Nonviolence was Leo Tolstoy. I post here some of his essays on the subject:

"The Kingdom of God Is Within You" by graf Leo Tolstoy

Thanks Arthra, I appreciate the comments and information. I agree and am very familiar with Tolstoy; can't argue with the statement that he's one of the best proponents. I enjoy listening to his words. I listen to all kinds of audio books (I learn and retain better through audio than reading yet I do read) and have listened to this one completely and another of his I like is "What I Believe". You may already know of Adin Ballou. I enjoyed his writing on Non-Resistance. Both authors I believe are free on audio at Librivox. I have Librivox app on my phone which I use extensively. One of the contemporary books I've listened to which struck me relatively profoundly is "Jesus For President" by Shane Claiborne. Again, I appreciate the information.

 

[Boll Weevil]

So wars are good guys fighting good guys. The opposing soldiers are both doing the right thing, everyone wears the white hat, and God is on both sides.

Who is to say which side is right. It's completely subjective without guidelines. Both sides believe they are right. The answer is simply don't involve yourself in war; it's exactly and clearly what Jesus taught.