Christians are called to obey governments (Romans 13.1-7): "let everyone be subject to governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." However, most Christian ethicists recognise that this obedience only goes so far - if it clashes with our obedience to God, then we have to rethink (e.g. Daniel).
E.g., when Anglican ministers are licensed they swear obedience to their Lord Bishop in all things lawful. I.e. they recognise that their Lord Bishop has no hold over them should he stray outside the law.
But this is all a bit vague. How do you decide where to draw the line? If the authorities tell you that you cannot pray to God but must pray to a false God, you reject their authority, like Daniel. Most Christians would agree ethically (but would they be able to prove?) that someone like Corrie Ten Boom was right to hide Jews from the Nazi government because she knew they would be killed. Consider then this modern example:
Suppose I know a hypothetical Zimbabwean. He/She is awaiting a court verdict for deportation because of a failed asylum application. The delay has been caused because HM Government has appealed against a court ruling on Zimbabwean deportation. Suppose they win. Suppose he/she has lost all his/her family in Zimbabwe and returning would mean almost certain death (all hypothetical, you understand).
Could it ever be right for a Christian in the UK to hide such a person from the Immigration Authorities knowing that to give them up would send them to die?
Why or why not? Is it any different to Corrie Ten Boom? Why or why not? I'm interested in your views - hypothetically, of course.....!
Discuss.
Hypothetical ethics...
Posted by adrian reynolds at 2:06 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I find nothing in the ten commandments about weighing up governmental laws with the law of God. I do find a commandment to honour God and to avoid killing.
I do not read in my bible that Jesus had a primary - or even significant - concern with honouring the laws of the government of his day. Particularly not those that went against God's law.
No, this situation is no different from Corrie ten Boom's. Only if you buy into the idea that one of Christianity's primary raisions d'etre is as a tool of the government to keep civil order. However, there may of course be civil repercussions.
Prayers for all who are involved - hypothetically - in this situation. I have no doubt myself what Jesus would do, and it deserves the support of Christian brothers and sisters. It is a Godly thing indeed.
I agree with Pambg. The "proof", I think, is Acts 4, where there is apostolic precedent for rejecting the laws of men where they clash with God's commands.
Ok, I've just got time tod sicuss the principles at the moment rather than work them out in regard to the hypotheticals...
It seems to me that Romans 13 implies that God has established the authority of particular positions (e.g. human government, but also authority in church life such as elders and in family life such as husbands), not the inherent authority of any particular person or group occupying that position.
So the authority of any particular government is only legitimate as far as it is exercising the authority that God has established. If the government requires you to do something that God has forbidden, or neglect something he has commanded, then that is legitimate grounds for peaceful, reasonable, humble, but firm civil disobedience. This is disobedience not done in rebellion to authority, but in obedience to true authority.
I think that in the case of Rom 13 and 1 Pet 2 it's helpful to consider the function of the texts. What sort of opponents are the authors combatting? Isn't it more about criticising people who would start a revolution or take revenge?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer began to think about this issue of obedience and later was involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler. He reckoned that, being aware of our inability to act sinlessly and fully understand all the issues in the world there is a need to nevertheless act in some way. He sees the way that Jesus, though sinless, plunged himself into a world of guilt and sin and sees an analogy here for our lives.
In other words, here he criticises a hair-splitting obedience when, in light of the reality of the awful political situation, I shirk the responsibility I have to become guilty - sometimes selfless love demands that I become guilty.
"How do you decide where to draw the line?" is a fairly abstract question but in the case of the Zimbawean refugee I would imagine that hiding them (intentionally becoming guilty) would be the most loving thing to do - and love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 12:10).
Rugby, Rugby, Rugby!!!
Luís
"Os jogadores de Râguebi são dos desportistas mais inteligentes do Mundo, quem mais se atreveria a jogar com uma bola oval"
a good name is better than fragrant oil (Ecclesiastes 7:1).
Post a Comment