Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Religion and Politics Part 2

I don't really know if a politician should be doing things that are not the things his/her consituents want. I think that even if a politician is religious, if they are representing a majority of people who are not religious, they need to be voting on legislation without their religious bias. If this is not possible, then I believe this politician should step down.

We have Senior W. claiming divine intervention and starting a war that he believes is God's will. Now this is fine and dandy as long as 51% of America agrees with this. I don't think this is the case and thus I don't think it is the right way to run a nation.

"But Dean, what are we to do about Romans 13?"

"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."


Many times I have had Christians tell me that this passage means that we need to blindly follow our governments but nowhere in this passage does this say that. Rather it says that governments are put in place by God to bring glory to Him and we should go a long with their glorification of God.

Also, this passage does not talk about why policitians should follow their religious convictions. The only way that I can see somebody interpreting it in this way would be to say that since policitians are appointed by God then they should do their best to follow God's teachings.

The problem with this point of view though in my opinion is that this leaves the leader of a nation in charge of interpreting scipture which is something humans have a history of doing fairly badly. (Examples: Salem Witch Trials, Crusades, Slavery, Women's Roles, and now Gays) The past does not bode well for leaders who have tried to interpret scripture. This is why I think it is a mighty dilema to have a politician voiting their religious convictions if they are not properly representing their constituents.

Wow, this got long winded...

2 comments:

Jason Kanz said...

Dean, You probably won't get this, but I felt compelled to reply.

You wrote, "This leaves the leader of a nation in charge of interpreting scipture (sic) which is something humans have a history of doing fairly badly. (Examples: Salem Witch Trials, Crusades, Slavery, Womens' Roles, and now Gays)

I agree that humans often have trouble interpreting scripture, but I am more likely to trust someone trained in Biblical exegesis. I don't think the situations you mention above are specifically issues of scriptural interpretation so much as application. For example, the Bible clearly and consistently indicates that homosexual behavior is sinful. The way many Christians treat homosexuals, however, is not Biblical and I would argue involves anti-Biblical principles. Show them the love of Christ and let God be the judge.

Dean Alley said...

Jason,

I wrote this what feels like forever ago, sorry I never responded, I certainly read it and thought about it over the years. Shoot, maybe you won't see this.

I think I agree with most of what you say here, at least now I do, back then..who knows (I was a twit).

I would like the bring discussion to the point of trusting someone with Biblical exegesis and the distinction you make between interpretation and application.

I wonder, at what point does trusting someone else who has Biblical exegesis just become another case of the blind leading the blind and then we get another situation (like I listed) where perhaps the interpretation is right but the application gets horribly skewed?