Posted on 04/14/2015 3:49:30 PM PDT by fwdude
If there’s one thing today’s secular progressive enjoys, it’s telling Christians how to be Christians.
It feels funny when it happens. A bit like getting combat training from Jane Fonda or Cindy Sheehan.
But they mean well.
And they know a verse. Their favorite verse is Matthew 7:1, which says “judge not lest ye also be judged.” They quote it every time a Christian expresses an opinion because their years of deep theological study have shown them that Matthew 7:1 means it’s wrong to have an opinion. About anything. After all, an opinion is a judgment and you can’t do that.
Says so right there.
Red letters even.
The urge to lecture Christians on how to be Christian is almost irresistible in the dispute over whether businesses can be forced to participate in same-sex weddings.
“I thought you were a Christian. Aren’t Christians supposed to follow the law?”
For the moment, let’s put aside the far-from-resolved debate over whether the law really does mandate involuntary servitude for same-sex weddings.
For the purpose of this conversation, we will assume that it does.
Shouldn’t Christians just obey the law?
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote one of the greatest commentaries ever written about what Christian citizenship requires.
It is also instructive to remember the context in which the letter was written. It was a letter written to his fellow clergymen who were concerned about his activities.
At the time, not everyone appreciated his demonstrations the way we do today.
Specifically, they expressed “anxiety over [his] willingness to break laws”. He acknowledged the apparent contradiction in urging people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools and demonstrating in ways that the law forbid.
“How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” he asked rhetorically.
His response is instructive both for the Christian and for those who seek to understand what motivates Christians,
“The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Well how do we know whether a law is just or unjust?
A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
And this is where everyone starts to get uncomfortable. Is that MLK or Jerry Falwell?
Then he gives some examples:
An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.
I wonder if that would include laws that let one person decline to bake a cake with a message they disagree with but not another person. Doesn’t he understand that these people offend me?
The left isn’t going to condemn MLK anytime soon because they like what he did. But their failure to appreciate or even acknowledge why he did it causes them to miss a much larger point.
Fundamental to Christianity is the idea that there is a law higher than man’s law.
The compulsion to obey God regardless of what the law says is the reason the Civil Rights movement was a movement of Christians. It is the reason Quakers violated the law to be an integral part of the Underground Railroad. It is why Christians rallied against the ancient practice of exposure in which infants were set out to die immediately after birth. It is why Christians worked in India to eliminate the practice of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands.
This isn’t an attempt to provide an exhaustive history of Christianity. I’m confident I don’t need to remind you of the challenges the Christian church has had. That’s what President Obama is for.
But context is important.
The reason Christians violated the law to free slaves, save babies from exposure, and rescue widows from funeral pyres is the same reason Christians today feel they cannot be part of a same-sex wedding ceremony. We are bound to a higher law.
And before you start lecturing your Christian friends about why their position is actually not the Christian position, stop and ask yourself this question. “Do I actually know what I’m talking about?” If you haven’t read a Bible in a year, the answer is likely no.
Besides, the fact that you may not understand why someone feels something is wrong should not prohibit you from respecting their conscience anyway.
Nevertheless, the idea that there is a law that is above government is not simply just a Christian idea, it is an American idea as well.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us that our rights are endowed by our creator not our government and that governments are created to secure rights, not to create them.
We are a constitutional republic (rather than a democracy) with a Bill of Rights specifically because our Founders understood that the majority can be wrong; a position that assumes a moral law exists above legislated law.
Therefore, even if everyone knows I’m a terrible, horrible, very bad guy, even ninety-nine percent of the public can’t vote to take away my right to free speech, the free exercise of religion, or a fair trial.
Your rights transcend your political popularity and the government exists to protect those rights, not appease the mob.
This structure protects us all because, as the gay lobby has so clearly demonstrated, neither political popularity nor political powerlessness are necessarily permanent conditions.
While the right not to participate has historically been protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee to the Free Exercise of religion, some now claim the obligation to participate is required by the “duly enacted” non-discrimination statute.
The majority said you can’t use religion as an excuse to “discriminate”, so you can’t.
But the majority isn’t supposed to be able to “duly enact” away the First Amendment. That’s why it’s the First Amendment.
But again, we’re assuming none of that matters.
In a world in which the law is in conflict with the Christian conscience, the response from many on the left is a cold, “Just obey the law.”
To which the florist responds, “I will obey the law, I just won’t obey your law.”
And from his perch in heaven, Martin Luther King Jr. says, “You go girl!”
While the smoke is coming out of those strange buildings?
Highways( TurnPikes or Pikes ) in and around philly, bridges, , were private toll roads, fire brigades were all private in the beginning. most infrastructure was private. water here was public since 1820’s The last private gas works in philly succumbed to the city version in 1963 i think.
I also don’t mind breaking BS laws that don’t possess a moral component.
Regarding Romans 13, we have a government established by God that gives people the right to speak and oppose and even physically fight tyranny if it comes to that.
This is the dynamic that is often overlooked.
Our rights come from God and we are blessed in this but, now as our nation turns away and we are seeing the results.
Keep the powder dry. This is deep spiritual war and it is deadly serious.
Christians are supposed to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." Meaning we obey the law except when the law goes against God's word. When there is a conflict, we obey God (of course!). If I were a baker or a wedding photographer, I would consider my participation in a gay "marriage" to be minor, so trivial that the moral dimension did not apply.
However, when the thugs decide that they can compel people to participate, then participation sets a precedent implying that we must obey unjust laws. That is bad. It also sets the bar lower, and eventually (probably quickly) the thugs will reach a level that does matter to me. For that reason, we must oppose the incrementalism of the far left at every step. We must fight them on gun control - repealing even the most apparently trivial of gun laws so that they don't have a nose in our tent. We must fight them at the first encroachment on our fundamental freedoms, not just when the violations reach the level of immediate danger, and we must roll back the many gains they have made.
"You will bake me a cake!" Of course. "My rate for that cake is $17,000. Oh, you're going elsewhere? Good bye." Or perhaps, "I'll see you in court and fight you until I die of old age and broke, but you will get neither a cake nor a single dollar of an honest person's money."
"You will photograph my 'wedding'!" Of course. "Oh dear, I'm a bit under the weather. I must cancel at the last minute." Or perhaps, "I'll see you in court and fight you until every totalitarian is stopped, but you will get neither a snapshot nor a single dime of a good person's money."
"You will host my gay reception in the B&B you call home!" No problem. "Oh dear, septic problem, trucks are here and pumping, but it won't be available today. I found you another location though - the WalMart manager said you could gather in his parking lot." Or perhaps, "I'll see you in court and fight you until we finally return to a legal system that respects property rights, but you will never set foot on my property nor will you steal a single penny of a free person's money."
We need to listen to Churchill's "We Shall Fight on the Beaches" speech and take that approach to fighting the evil we face today. This is far more dangerous than the enemy our greatest generation faced, particularly because it is an internal enemy and our White House itself is controlled by America's most dangerous enemy.
I am not talking from the POV of the left...the left is the left, and they’re gonna do what they’re gonna do. I just don’t think a baker or florist is advocating an event simply because they provide the flowers or the cake - nor do I think it’s a good witness to refuse. I support their right to do so, I just don’t think it’s a wise decision.
Especially since 99% of such requests are simply set ups.
You totally miss the point of “hill to die on.”
Your post is not relevant. I don’t say do it because the left says so - I say do it because I don’t remember a single time Jesus and Joseph refused sinners their carpentry services.
And if I’m not mistaken, the first person to see the Risen Christ was a prostitute.
I just don’t think this is a wise battle to fight - though I think these businesses should be left alone.
stupid.
So you agree the government has the right to arrest those who refuse?
Not following your argument.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
“Their favorite verse is Matthew 7:1, which says “judge not lest ye also be judged.” They quote it every time a Christian expresses an opinion...”
And they take it out of context. In this verse/siituation, it was directed specically at Pharisees who were ultra hypocrites.
The whole Bible is a manual on how to judge people and situations. God commands Christians to judge — righteously.
“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”- Benjamin Franklin
Yes!
Judge Correctly !
Seems no One is quoting
the Entire VERSE!
What would be a wise battle to fight, in your opinion?
I see. Anyone who expresses a contrary opinion to yours is put down. How liberal.
Suppose you were told to identify and round up a particular group of people to be loaded on rail cars to be sent to camps.
That’s the “progressive” idea of “christianity.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.