Biblical Authority

This past Sunday my partner and I were in Plains, GA to see some friends of ours. One of our friends happens to be the pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains which is a small church but a remarkably well known church as well, you see Maranatha counts one of the most famous Sunday school teachers in the world as one of its members, former President Jimmy Carter.

President Carter still teaches Sunday school as often as his schedule will let him and he was in Plains and teaching so we were able to enjoy his class this past Sunday. He entered the crowded room filled with people from around the country there so they could get as close to a President of the United States as they could and he started off asking the same question he asks at the beginning of all of his classes, "Are there any visitors here today?"

This is a man who is 86 years old and still quick as can be and completely on top of his game. Not only is he still well respected around the world but he also has the ability to stir things up in his own home town. In his lesson he read Romans 13:1-3, verses in which the Apostle Paul writes to the church in Rome. Let me quote the verses for you from the New International Version Bible;

¹ Let everyone be subject 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, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For 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 you will be commended.


This is an interesting bit of text, you see Paul is telling the church in Rome that they should not stand up to the Roman government because the Roman government only exists because God allows them to exist and going against the government is to go against God. Of course this forces us to ask some rather unpleasant questions, if we had lived in Nazi Germany would we have been wrong to stand up against Hitler's government? Were the Vietnam war protesters in the US wrong in the eyes of God? Must Christians sit back and say nothing against their government and simply follow all of the laws and regulations the government establishes? 


I commend President Carter for raising these questions and turning an event that for most is simply a formality they must sit through in order to get their photo made with President Carter into a moment in which all of us were forced to stop and think about what it is that we actually believe.


Many individuals in the Tea Party movement would consider themselves Biblical literalists, taking every word in the Bible as the word of God, but if this is what they believe how can they rail against our government so strongly? How can any of us follow a God that would command us to accept a regime like the Nazis, could God be responsible for putting monsters like this in power?


President Carter offered a very reasonable answer, although I must admit it was a bit surprising to hear from a Southern Baptist in a church in rural Southern Georgia. President Carter reminded us all that the church in Rome was very small when Paul wrote to them, very small and very vulnerable. The Roman government could have easily have crushed the Christian Church in Rome with little effort and President Carter argued that Paul was advising the church in Rome to not make waves, to lay low, to avoid attracting attention. Paul according to President Carter was advising the church in Rome that to stand up against the Roman Government would be the end of the church in Rome and so the best way to serve God was in fact to respect the authority of the Roman government in this case. He then added that this information was specifically for the church in Rome and that it probably didn't apply today.


President Carter was saying that not every word in the Bible applies to us today and that if we were ever in doubt we should compare the passage we are having doubts about to the teachings of Jesus Christ himself and if the two are in conflict to rely on Christ's teachings. This would be considered by many Christians to be a rather radical statement as they believe that the Bible is the word of God and to go against any of it (even though it does seem very self contradictory in many places) is to go against God. Of course this means that the Tea Partiers were sinning with all of their calls to stand up to the US government and it means that anti-abortion protesters should stand down and accept the right of a woman to have an abortion as this right came from a government which Paul tells us was established and endorsed by God.


So maybe these verses from Romans will be what causes many Biblical literalists and Christian fundamentalists to decided that not every word of the Bible was intended for them or for our time. Maybe they will start to see the Bible as more of a living document that has to be read with the perspective that comes from living in the 21st century. Of course this would make it hard for them to defend the stance that most Christian Churches have taken against gay marriage, it would make it hard for them to not fight as hard as they can for things like universal health care, support for the poor, help for the disabled, and to fight for the equality of all man-kind.


You raise an interesting question President Carter, do we listen to Paul and simply let the government do as it will as it is an extension of God's power? Or do we follow the example set by Christ and focus on the needs of the poor and marginalized in our society who Jesus always stood up for? This is an easy one for me to answer, I just wish we could get an answer to this question out of all of the major religious leaders in our country. And I bet they will be talking about this in Plains for a few days to come.

The 2 party system must end.

In 2008 the economy was in terrible shape and Americans were angry with how George Bush and the Republicans had been running the country. So what did the voters do? They did the only thing they could, they voted in a bunch of Democrats.

Now in 2010 the economy is in terrible shape and Americans are unhappy with how Barrack Obama and the Democrats are running the country. So what did the voters do? They expressed their anger in the only way they can, they voted in a bunch of Republicans, you know, members of the party that they were so angry with two years earlier that they replaced many of the Republicans in Congress and many Republican governors with Democrats. They took the party that was seen as being responsible for the severe economic down turn and put them back in power because they really didn't see any other way of punishing the Democrats who they were not happy with.

Imagine if there had been other choices besides the Democrats and Republicans in this elections. Imagine if there had not just been a viable third party but a viable 4th and 5th and 6th parties as well. Some people will imagine this and think it sounds like chaos, but to me it sounds like a way to make government work.

With just 2 parties there is little incentive for either party to try and govern effectively. They realize that it is easier, far easier, to win elections by making the other party look bad than it is to win elections by governing effectively. This is why between 2008 and 2010 the Republicans became the party of "No" and offered steadfast resistance to any policies promoted by the Democrats no matter what the policies were. Now that the Republicans control the house I would be willing to bet money that Democrats in the House will take on a much more obstructionist stance as they see it as the easiest way to stand out in voter's minds. In other words we have institutionalized grid lock and a nearly complete inability to deal with the problems facing our nation.

But if you had five parties in Congress with similar numbers of representatives things would change considerably. Any two of these parties could join up (and since the divisions between the parties would probably be diluted with the inclusion of more parties the likelihood that two parties would join up should increase) and get a considerable amount of legislation passed. This means that all the parties would be encouraged to start working together to make themselves look good instead of just trying to make one other party look bad. Additional parties would also help spread out the money being donated by large corporations and other special interest groups and reduce their over all influence.

So what do we do? Continue swapping out the 2 parties every few years or do we eliminate the 2 party system and make our government work again?

Christine O'Donnell is a Marxist?

In a recent debate with her opponent, Chris Coons for the Delaware Senate seat once held by Vice President Biden, Christine O'Donnell accused Mr. Coons of supporting tenets of Marxism like raising taxes and bigger government. Of course Ms. O'Donnell is a supporter of reducing taxes and smaller government. This brings up an interesting question.

You see Marxist ideology teaches that a revolution will lead, in the end, to a stateless society, in other words governments will go away as there will be no need for them as all they currently exist to do is, directly or indirectly, protect private property. Under Marxism there is no private property and therefore no need for government. So under Marxism there would be a great reduction in taxes, down to zero, and a huge reduction in the size of government, down to non-existent. No taxes, no government, sounds like Christine O'Donnell's perfect world.

Christine O'Donnell supports lowering taxes and reducing the size of government, both tenets of Marxism. She has recently stated in a TV ad that she isn't a witch, can we now assume that she is a Marxist?