I've been working through Wide as the Waters, a non-fiction piece on "the story of the English Bible and the Revolution it inspired."
One thing that has been nagging me since SKH preached through submission to authority is this: was it right for preachers to spread Wycliffe's theology when, according to the law, it was wrong? Was it right for publishers to create black-market copies of Tyndale's New Testament - was it right for merchants to then smuggle them into England?
Every step of Tyndale's translation required rebellion against some sort of law or authority - was this Biblical? On all accounts, fighting doctrinal error and the corruption in the Catholic Church for the salvation of souls seems the greater good, but do we get into dangerous waters when we pragmatically begin discussing 'the greater good?'
I'm just curious what all of you think...those who still wander by time-to-time, that is :)
4 comments:
I agree the "greater good" argument quickly gets touchy, but there is at least a "greater God" argument that applies.
For example, two events in Acts provide not only an example of proper disobedience to authority, but also the theological reason (therefore it is a prescriptive example, not simply descriptive). Both situations involved preaching--proclaiming God's truth when the authorities did not approve. The first is in Acts 4:1-31, especially verses 19-20. The second is in 5:17-42, especially verse 29 (which is worth including here):
We must obey God rather than men.
We always obey authority, but God always has ultimate and final authority.
Note also that in both situations the apostles were never insolent toward the authority nor were they whiny when suffering the consequences for their disobedience. (These two ingredients are sorely lacking in much peddled disobedience today. But the same disobedient yet humble approach is also modeled by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as well as Daniel).
I suspect not all those in church history who disobeyed governmental or religious authority were entirely appropriate in their manner, but I also suppose many (though certainly not all) of them did desire to obey God and endeavored to honor His divine authority and revealed truth.
I purposefully didn't provide these illustrations during my messages on submitting even when the authority is unjust and hurtful. First, most of the time the issue is personal, not revelational. Second, most of our students don't get submission to authority who love them and seek their best. That said, I certainly don't desire to obscure the "greater God" principle when it appropriately applies.
Oops. I was supposed to wait for the rest of the small group to answer first, wasn't I?
:-)
Thanks SKH! I knew it was 'right' for the Reformers to fight for God's Word, or for individuals in China to have underground churches, but I wasn't sure how to defend that within Scripture. I must admit that sometimes some Reformers' attitudes didn't seem humble or joyful, but I've also been colored with being Politically Correct :) - which they were not.
I think there's a tension between Paul's notion in Romans 14 of obeying the government and the prophetic notion in the Old Testament of God encouraging the challenging of the those in pwer because of their abuse of that power. I wonder what Amos or Jeremiah would have thought about the way we can tend to interpret Paul's statement as absolute.
I think there's something to be said for the attempt to undermine the legitimacy of those in power when that power is abused using Christ's self giving love as our paradigm. I think in this vein Yancey is right that grace is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is at the core of who God is. Forgive me if this doesn't entirely make sense, but it is only 2 paragraphs... I'm happy to expound though.
Post a Comment