alt Hacker NewsOurs is a religion of submission to God, literally calling upon us to "pick up your cross daily." Which is, to die to yourself in submitting to God's will.
Various books of the Bible were written to very specific peoples at specific times, but at the same time, to all Christians everywhere. It takes wisdom to discern to which group does an instruction apply, and when?
This isn't to say that under no circumstances can you break the law; consider Christians in countries where Christianity is unlawful, they consistently break the law and defy the government because submission to God supersedes submission to government.
This passage specifically establishes that building a "Christian Caliphate" is not a goal of Christianity nor should it be a goal of any individual Christian. In general, the government is an institution put in place by God. The general principle is that God is sovereign, so by resorting to violence to assert yourself and your rights you are in no small way asserting your own will over His.
Books have been written on this, so I'll stop here. If you're interested, you can to much deeper on this.
I just wanted to clarify the drive-by theology indicating Christians are somehow "siding" with the "elite" is a very poor understanding of the scripture and ignores basically all of history.
Replies
> I just wanted to clarify the drive-by theology indicating Christians are somehow "siding" with the "elite" is a very poor understanding of the scripture and ignores basically all of history.
This is a factually incorrect statement. There have been many times where Christianity and the State have aligned for mutual benefit. Ignoring that would be ignoring history!
Just a few examples:
- The Constantinian Shift (4th Century AD): When Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity (313 AD) and Emperor Theodosius I made it the official Roman state religion (380 AD), the Church transformed from a persecuted minority into an institutional ally of imperial power (Source: Eusebius, "Life of Constantine"; Peter Brown, "Through the Eye of a Needle").
- The Divine Right of Kings & Feudalism: Throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, Christian theology was used to legitimize monarchical power and feudal class structures. Rulers were viewed as ordained directly by God, making rebellion against political elites a sin (Source: Ernst Kantorowicz, "The King's Two Bodies").
- Martin Luther & The German Peasants' War (1524–1525): When German peasants revolted against feudal oppression using Protestant ideas, Martin Luther explicitly sided with the aristocracy, writing Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, urging nobles to suppress the uprising forcefully.
- Pro-Slavery Theology in the Antebellum South: Major American denominations split over slavery in the 1840s (e.g., the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845), with prominent theologians using Biblical texts to justify chattel slavery and protect the economic interests of the plantation elite (Source: Mark Noll, "The Civil War as a Theological Crisis").
- Currently in the US, the Federal Government and Christianity have strong alignment, to the point where pastors in churches advocate for politicians openly now. https://abcnews.com/Politics/meet-pastors-support-donald-tru...
Edit: Why TF was this flagged??
As a preamble, I don't want to attack your faith.
However, the argument here is not that Christians side with the elite, but that the Church does. The Church has sided with the powerful again and again over the centuries, to great effect for its own wealth, going against what was objectively (ie not only by today's standards) morally right, and very much against scripture.
Your own argument that submission to God supersedes submission to government is one that the Church, as an institution, rarely abides by. By any reasonable reading of his sayings, Jesus would have preached against oppression of the poor, slavery, war, politically-convenient massacres, even the selling of indulgences. From the 4th century on, the Church has been part and parcel of oppression in all its forms, at enormous benefit to itself, and often against what the oppressed wished.
The changes that the Church made to early Christianity (centralisation, violent standardisation of beliefs, empowerment of the clergy) might have been sincere, but the continuing plight of the poor while the Church became one of the richest and most powerful institution in this part of the world is difficult to see as an an unfortunate coincidence.
If the Church is happy to call for the killing of peasants while at the same time initiating and celebrating massacres during the Crusades (a period of a Christian caliphate), among many many examples, it's only right that the institution be seen as an oppressor that has not much in common with Jesus or Christians.
Again, I'm not talking about Christians, or even individual priests, but the institution itself. I think Jesus had beautiful ideas, but it's difficult to know anything about history and not despise the Church.