Barney Wiget's Blog, page 49

The Law is the Law, or is it? – Romans 13 and the Refugee Crisis (Part 3 of 5ish)

[image error]

“Through your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but through your moral and spiritual genius you have failed to make of it a brotherhood.” Martin Luther King Jr. in his message, Paul’s Letter to American Christians.

Various lawmakers and Christian have quoted Romans 13 in support of the present administration’s policy to jail asylum seekers at our borders. When Attorney General Jeff Sessions referenced the passage he didn’t misquote it as much as rip it out of context. Last time I refuted “always-obey-your-government” idea of a “lexical” standpoint. In this post we’ll look at the context of the passage in question. First a little context about context…

Paul wrote most of his epistles in an entirely different way than Solomon, for instance, wrote Proverbs. For the most part, Proverbs is more like a monthly devotional with each day’s theme unrelated to the previous one and not necessarily in preparation for the next. In ten verses Solomon might address ten completely different topics. On the other hand, Paul tends is usually much more systematic in his epistles, Romans in particular. His is a line-upon-line argument-building genre. One thought forms the basis for the next, and the next for the one that follows it.

Understanding the Proverbs requires very little consideration of context. Each verse is pretty much self-contained. If we read Romans that way, we’re liable to come up with some pretty aberrant conclusions, like the ones that Jeff Sessions seems to arrive at in regard to Romans 13:1-7. My point is, if we read these verses as though unrelated to the preceding and/or subsequent passages we might very well come to the conclusion that we must in every case, obey all laws, even at the peril of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” of other people.

They say, “A text without a context is a pretext.” So, let’s look at the before and after contexts of Romans 13:1-7

What comes before? 

Paul didn’t write his epistles in chapter and verse divisions any more than you put little numbers next to paragraphs in your letters to friends. It’s important then to note that any interpretation of Romans13:1-7 that does not include 12:9-21 about serving our fellow humans in sincere and sacrificial love is a misunderstanding of the text. Here are some sound bites:

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.  Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality…
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.  Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position… 
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone…
If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.

What comes after? 

The same goes for what comes directly after verses 1-7:

… the continuing debt to love one another
…whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
…whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
…Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” 

So what?

I trust you can see that neighbor love bookends the conversation about submission to governing authorities. Love––then law––then love again. He even spells out what that love looks like. It looks like:

Love sincerely, be devoted to one another in love, honor one another, be hospitable, bless your persecutors, live at peace with everyone, feed your enemies…
Be indebted only to love, love fulfills the law and never does harm to its neighbor…

Is it not clear then that love is the lens through which we relate to the laws of a civil society? Aren’t we to think and act as though love of neighbor trumps laws of state (no pun intended)? Shouldn’t everything we do, including having a posture of compassion for refugees, be filtered through the purifying influence of love of God and neighbor?

Put another way: The law of the land (Romans 13:1-7) doesn’t exempt us from the law of love (Romans 12:9-12 and 13:8-10). We are responsible, as good citizens of both heaven and the state, to submit to the laws of the state insofar as they reflect and don’t violate our most central commandments to love God and our neighbor.

Love is the summation of all of God’s requirements. If we love him and love others, everything else sort of takes care of itself. Therefore, I propose that regardless of the current policy and/or law regarding immigrants, we can’t biblically justify anything outside a loving treatment of destitute men, women, and children at our border.

Fourth Century Roman Emperor, Julian, said, “These impious Galileans (i.e., Christians) provide not only for their own poor but for ours as well!” Those crazy early Christians took care of the poor among the Jews, the Romans, and anyone who crossed their path! To our shame we often don’t even exhibit this kind of love and hospitality to the people next door, let alone to those on the other side of national borders.

I need another post to unpack some more of these prescriptions of Paul:

“Love does no harm to a neighbor…”
“Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good…”
“Practice hospitality…”
“Mourn with those who mourn…”
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him…”
“Love your neighbor as yourself”

Talk to you next week about these.

Blessings!

“Suffer Well”

[image error]

A good theology of suffering teaches us not to waste our sorrows, but to sidle up as close as we can to the heart of Jesus as we endure our pains.

While I’d rather sound like Elijah than Eeyore when I pray, the “positive confession” can sometimes be more spiritualistic than spiritual. I want to grieve the reality of my loss— not the loss of my reality.

Oswald Chambers says, “Do not look for God to come in any particular way, but look for Him.” My focus has been on learning to trust God with my life (and death) rather than trying to pin him down to a particular outcome.

In these years of fighting a fearsome disease, my thinking about faith has been slowly shifting. I’ve come to realize that sometimes God has his reasons for miraculously making us well and at other times he gives us the strength to suffer well. The same God who said to Moses, “I am the Lord who heals you,” also said to Paul, “My grace is sufficient” for him to endure his “thorn in the flesh.”

– Originally published in The Other End of the Dark: A Memoir About Divorce, Cancer, and Things God Does Anyway (the profits of which go to Freedom House).

Baby Steps

[image error]

It’s not only unnecessary; it’s counterproductive when we turn the fireman’s hose of spiritual verbiage on people who just need to sip the Water of Life. Of course, we want to bring people all the way to a radical conversion on the spot, and there’s nothing better when that happens. But when that doesn’t occur, I consider it a minor victory to be at least one Christian that might not get listed under the heading of “Self-Righteous Know-It-Alls.” If I can’t win everybody to Jesus, I want to at least give him or her no new alibis for rejecting him.

We might do well to celebrate the smaller steps people need to take toward a friendship with God. Remember that we’re not their first clue that he exists (creation, conscience, culture, etc. all beat you to the punch) and we probably won’t be their last. Our passion, then, can be a more patient passion to bring them to Jesus.

– Originally published in Reaching Rahab: Joining God In His Quest For Friends

The Law is the Law, or is it? – Romans 13 and the Refugee Crisis (Part 2 of 5ish)

[image error]

“You Christians have been lawyering the Bible for 2000 years!” Bill Maher

“You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” Jesus Christ

Attorney General Jeff Sessions quoted from Romans 13 to support the administration’s justification of incarcerating refugees like criminals and separating parents from their children. I consider his approach to this passage a classic example of Bible-lawyering and in this series I’ll take a stab at un-lawyering it.

Bible scholars talk about the difference between “exegesis” and “eisegesis.”  Put simply, one has to do with forming our beliefs out of the Bible rather than imposing our presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it in order to make it mean whatever we want it to mean.

We all have preferences and prejudices that effect our objective interpretation and application of Scripture, however, an honest and humble heart that simply longs to know the truth can blunt this tendency. “My theories,” someone admitted, “were attacked by a gang of ugly facts!”

Ralph Drollinger does some serious Bible-lawyering in his “Members Bible Study” missive called, “What the Bible Says About Our Illegal Immigration Problem.” Drollinger teaches the White House Bible study that Jeff Sessions and other lawmakers attend wherein he specifically imposes––on wonky Scriptural ground––his political agenda regarding immigrants and refugees. He claims that God “frowns on illegals immigrants” in the same way he frowns on “children ruling the roost”!

He claims that “illegals” bring little more than “weapons of destruction, disease, property and job theft, the importation of illegal drugs” and that our biblical mandate to protect our border from such intrusions is paramount to all of God’s laws. For a finale he advocates not only the deportation of immigrants but wants to charge them a fee on the way out! A pretty creative way to fund ICE, wouldn’t you say? Welcome to the White House Bible Study!

In the introductory post I promised a brief study of the passage from four perspectives: lexical, contextual, theological, and historical. Let’s deal with the first of these here.

A lexical look at Romans 13:1-7

“Lexical” simply refers to the actual words used in the passage itself. Though I’m no Greek scholar, I will point out three things included in Paul’s original terminology that aid our understanding of what he intended us to hear.

First, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities….”

Other versions translate it “submit” to such authorities. Please note the not-so-fine distinction between “submitting” and “obeying” the government. They may overlap, and while submission is often expressed in obedience, it certainly is not always the case.

We submit to someone when we recognize their authority and respect it. Paul uses the very same term (hupotasso) when he mandates us to submit to spiritual leaders (1 Corinthians 16:16), to one another (Ephesians 5:21), wives to husbands (Ephesians 5:24), slaves to masters (Titus 2:9), and prophets to one another (1 Corinthians 14:32).

In each of these cases he calls for respect from one to another for the position they have and the role they play in their lives, keeping in mind that God is over all. But in none of these cases are we to assume that he prescribes a blanket and unqualified obedience––of wife to husband, church member to pastors, or slaves to masters. God alone is the only one to whom we reserve our unreserved obedience. While he authorizes husbands, pastors, bosses, and governing entities, each of these is flawed and subject to making errant demands on those under their influence.

The woman whose husband tells her to obey their his whim, the Christian whose pastor requires compliance in all matters, or the citizen whose government requires them to violate their conscience before God are to respectfully decline and not to obey.

“We must obey God rather than human beings!” said the apostles to the authorities who ordered them to stop preaching Jesus. We respect our government, spouses, pastors, and bosses; and will do all we can to obey their demands when such demands comply with the clear will of God. But when they don’t, we respectfully disobey them in order to obey him.

In his seminal “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:

“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ 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.’

“It was ‘illegal’ to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.”

Secondly, let’s look at Paul’s claim that “the authorities that exist have been established by God.”

Some have taken this verse to mean that Donald Trump and virtually every other world leader is put in office by God and must therefore be God’s choice that we must submit unconditionally to his administration’s lead and laws. But according to scholars the term “established” might better be translated “ordered by God.” It’s not that every governing authority on God’s green earth is ordained by him, but ordered.

This sense of “ordering” implies that God participates in governments in a more indirect way than many imply. The term (tasso) doesn’t mean ordained, approved, instituted, or underwritten–by God. It means rather that governments are “ordered” by God and in some sense serve his purposes, but it is not to be understood that one or another state or its leaders are directly blessed by God as his direct representatives—least of all the Roman Empire that executed Paul and his Lord Jesus.

Thirdly, let’s look at Paul’s warning that “whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.” 

It’s evident from the term he uses for “rebels” and the punishment he prescribes for those who rebel he’s not talking about speeding on the freeway or changing lanes without signaling. He had something else in his mind than misdemeanor offenses. The term here means to oppose or “take a stand against” as in Acts 18:6 where the Jews in Corinth “opposed and became abusive” toward him.

In Romans 13, the apostle isn’t referring to taking our lumps from the governing authorities for breaking this law or that one. He’s warning the Romans Christians (and us) against fomenting a violent revolution against the government, which was, for many Jews in Paul’s day, on the short list of options on how to free themselves from Rome’s oppressive rule. We’ll take another look at this historical context in a future post, but suffice to say, the “terror” and the “sword” that Paul says the state holds is for insurgents who revolt against it. As Christians we are neither permitted to revolt violently against Caesar nor excuse his bad behavior.

Bonhoeffer, who some nineteen centuries later would be, like Paul, killed by a ruthless empire, wrote regarding this very passage, “St. Paul is talking to the Christians, not the State. His concern is that Christians should persevere in repentance and obedience wherever they may be and whatever conflict should threaten them. He is not concerned to excuse or condemn any secular power.”

Our agenda in relation to Empire should not be hostility or to wrest the steering wheel from those in power. We speak truth to power but we’re not permitted to steal their power and use it against them. “My kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus said. “If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” 

In light of such things, using this passage to justify criminalizing and detaining the families in detention camps, refusing asylum to fellow humans being recruited by murderous thugs in their home countries, and telling women that domestic violence doesn’t qualify them asylum is not only not biblical, it’s unconscionable.

Next time we’ll look at the context of this passage in Romans and how it further confirms this thesis.

Liberal or Conservative?

[image error]

Someone asked me recently if I was a “liberal” or “conservative”?

Labels are like bed bugs. The infestation begins with just two––a mommy and a daddy bug––and they multiply.  Labels like liberal and conservative are simply way too broad to describe the person who tries to think and act as a distinct human being.

There’s a video going around social media called, “The Unsilent Minority” wherein the young narrator claims repeatedly that though he used to be a card-carrying liberal, based on a number of ideas and actions of those he claims are liberals, he no longer ascribes to the groupthink of the liberal agenda. He incinerates the straw men and women “liberals” who hold outlandish agendas. His former crowd are members of the extreme end of what many label as liberalism, the ones who go to conservative rallies with hate signs, body armor, and baseball bats. He’s not really making an argument against liberals as much against hyper-liberals (Antifa).

I’d be willing to bet it wouldn’t take much effort to locate a similarly produced video for why someone abandoned the ranks of the conservatism. “Those conservatives think this and do that… I hereby renounce my membership in the club…” It’s the same tactic employed by the other side who abhor the extremes of conservatism.

This is one of the reasons I avoid labeling myself and others. I’m neither a liberal nor conservative. Sure, I hold to convictions that may be identified with both and reject particular ideals of both. I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

READ ALSO: “The Libel of Labels”

With all the wacked ideas and hateful actions of those who claim membership in Club “Christian” I even hesitate these days identifying as a member. I’ve been following, loving, and serving Jesus for forty-six years. He’s more to me than anything or anyone, and though I used to be able to use the “Christian” label without reservation, because of all the wackiness in our ranks, it doesn’t seem to fit like it used to. If I have to own a moniker, I’d prefer to be called a “Jesus Follower.”

Anyway, back to war between liberals and conservatives: I’m neither. I admit to ascribing to ideas––ideas that I consider to be biblical––that require of me ideas that would make some would write me off as a “liberal.” If I say that I’m for a more compassionate approach to the immigration issue I’m automatically categorized, stamped, and shelved before they hear any explanations.

It goes both ways. When I say I’m against abortion, often those with a “liberal” bent dismiss me as a hate-mongering, misogynistic, conservative without giving me a chance to explain the whys and wherefores of my thinking. Fake news outlets come from both sides of the political isle.

It’s really pretty frustrating.

READ ALSO: “Critical Thinking Christians”

Those in love with every tenet of Republicanism, Democratism, conservatism, or liberalism are most likely not doing a lot of thinking for themselves. They’re suckers of groupthink. I appeal to you who follow Jesus to practice the kind of critical thinking that doesn’t succumb to slapping labels on themselves or others. You don’t like it when it when people call you names so don’t do it to others.

One reason for our bile-rich sociopolitical environment these days is our penchant––no, our love––of labels. Life is too nuanced for any human, creatively constructed by the Creator, to fit tidily into a prefab, hard-and-fast classification. Independent thought withers with the birth and nurture of labels. They’re a shortcut that won’t lead us to a better place spiritually or socially. Only sincere love can do that.

Brothers and sisters, let’s think for ourselves and think the best of others.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Romans 12:9-10

 

 

 

An Onramp to the Free-way

[image error]

Some call it “prevenient grace,” others use the phrase “common grace” to describe what the Spirit does to prepare people to hear about his “saving grace.” Whatever you want to call it, the Spirit uses anything he chooses to sing his “Come to Jesus!” song, and then invites us to harmonize with him! We might think of common grace as a “frontage road” from whence people can see the freeway through the chain link fence. We offer an onramp for them to use to jump on the “free-way” (cheesy pun intended) of salvation.

That he does all the preparatory work doesn’t mean that we are somehow expendable. Not at all. In his effort to bring spiritual orphans home he includes us. He doesn’t need our help, yet he’s chosen to involve us in his great people-loving, kingdom-building, friendship-making project. Partners with the Almighty in his quest to charm people into his family! What could be better?

– Originally published in Reaching Rahab: Joining God In His Quest For Friends

Repelling the Victim Virus

[image error]

I decided early on that I didn’t want the “victim virus” to take over my mind or my mouth, because I quickly noticed that whenever I succumbed to victimhood, “poor me” kept stumbling around in the dark, delaying my progress through the murky shadows. As Eugene H. Peterson writes, “God feels our pains, but he does not indulge our self-pity.”

So to get the focus away from my own difficulties, I began to focus on the needs of others. And since I was spending a lot of time in the hospital, I saw plenty of bleeding, crying, and dying people who were worse off than me. Elisabeth Elliot said, “Self-pity is a death that has no resurrection, a sinkhole from which no rescuing hand can drag you because you have chosen to sink” and I chose early on that I would do all I could to resist sinking into it.

I didn’t want to be defined by my misfortunes, but refined by them, and so I prayed that God would free me from the debris of my disappointments so that I could “do all things through Christ who strengthens me!”

– Originally published in The Other End of the Dark: A Memoir About Divorce, Cancer, and Things God Does Anyway (the profits of which go to Freedom House).

The Law is the Law, or is it? – Romans 13 and the Refugee Crisis (Part 1 of 4)

[image error]

“If you don’t want to be separated from your child then don’t bring them across the border illegally. It’s not our fault that somebody does that. . . Persons who violate the laws of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions in Fort Wayne, IN ~ June 14, 2018 

My more politically astute friends have reminded me recently that since politics is not my area of expertise I should stay out of debates like this one on immigration. While it’s true that I’m no pundit on affairs of state, I do know a thing or two about the Bible, and I can’t let Mr. Sessions get away with his cherry-picking interpretation of a biblical passage to justify the inhospitable, if not inhuman, way of mistreating immigrant children and their parents who come to our country in an attempt to escape hunger and/or violence in their countries of origin.

Regarding current U.S. immigration and border enforcement policies of warehousing parents and their children in detention facilities, denying asylum to people being hunted down by gangs and cartels, and telling women that domestic violence is not an asylum-worthy life circumstance; Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention said, “This is something that should be morally obvious. The very fact that we have to have this controversy is discouraging.” To “morally obvious” I would add biblically indisputable.

Spoiler Alert: I offer no specific solution to the crisis, not even anything like “open borders,” as many conservatives claim must be the proposition of anyone who proposes a more humane approach to immigration. So don’t get your hackles up in that direction before hearing me out. Everyone agrees that some sort of vetting and limits to the numbers we receive is reasonable.

However, neither can I sit back and be silent when our lawmakers treat our needy neighbors without conscience or compassion, calling them “animals”*, deeming all of them criminals, and then use the Bible to justify it. The Bible has historically been misused as a weapon in the hands of coercive authorities. Mr. Sessions, like other politicians and preachers before him, utilizes Scripture to back up his preconceived ideas and to keep people in line.

*[I am aware that Mr. Trump claims he was talking about MS-13 gang members in that comment. At least that’s what he said he meant. Who, that is MS-13 members, don’t seem to be pouring over the border like insects as the president repeatedly suggests.]

Of course, we’re all limited in our approach to God’s Word. We all have our own biases and prejudices that obscure its truths, however it is not an inherent fault against which we have no recourse.

Read: The Weaponized Bible

Bible weaponizers have used God’s Word to initiate the crusades, justify slavery, support Jim Crow laws and anti-Semitism, villainize Irish Catholics immigrating to the U.S., and engender hate against gays, Muslims, Mexicans, and all the other “others.” Such folk read it’s pages through the lens of the American Dream, through their party platform, or simply through whatever they think benefits them at the moment.

It was never God’s intent to give us his Word as ammunition to prove our points and win our arguments. The truth is more like seeds to plant in people rather than bullets to shoot at them! Seeds are for farmers and bullets for combatants.

This isn’t the first time in American history where this particular passage has been invoked to justify a political agenda. During the American Revolution, loyalists used it to oppose a resistance against British authority and laws. Southern slaveholders used the passage to justify slavery and fend off abolitionists. Oh, and by the way, Christians in Nazi Germany dutifully supported Hitler by citing Romans 13. “Be subject to governing authorities,” they said. When we get to the point of supporting Hitler and advocating slavery as a Christian duty, should be our first clue that our interpretation of Scripture has long left the rails!

Since the man who wrote this chapter was executed by the government for not submitting to the governing authorities out of his love for Christ, we might consider a different interpretation of it than our Attorney General posits.

In this and the following few posts I will encourage us to look at the passage from four different vantage points: lexical, contextual, theological, and historical/cultural, with a goal to arrive at a clearer understanding of these seven verses and its application to our present dilemma at our southern border. I assure you that it won’t be as complicated as it sounds.

Next time we’ll look at it from a “Lexical”* vantage point. Until then, remember Jesus was a refugee!

*[Don’t freak, “lexical” just means we’ll look at a few key words in the passage and their definitions.]

Forgiving Me

[image error]

Without confidence in the stubborn love of the Father and the over-ample sacrifice of Jesus I’d sink in the quicksand of my self-reproach. He sees my heart of repentance, hears the sincerity of my confession, takes a good long gaze into the eyes of his Son at his right hand, and assures me that the entire record of my failures is deleted and replaced by the record of Jesus.

When the snake comes to accuse me of previously confessed failures, I tell him to talk to Jesus about it and to slither back into the hole from which he came.

The extent to which I’m able to forgive others is the extent to which I’m able to take it for myself – and vise versa. Giving and receiving forgiveness are twin qualities. In order to “adopt” the one I have to take the other.

– Originally published in The Other End of the Dark: A Memoir About Divorce, Cancer, and Things God Does Anyway (the profits of which go to Freedom House).

Collaborative Seed Sowing

[image error]

The Spirit is anything but stingy with solicitations. His mailbag overflows as he distributes clues of the Father’s love, whose default is to include rather than exclude people from his family.

Jesus overpaid for as many orphans as would come home with him. And he doesn’t care which orphanage in which he finds them! Conveying a welcome as wide as his should be our ambition.

I’d like to think that if I were sharing my faith with Rahab, instead of merely identifying what was wrong with her ideas, I would celebrate what was true in her theology and build on that. I would acknowledge that the Spirit had been to Jericho sprinkling divine realities ahead of me and then hopefully collaborate with him to beckon her and her townspeople toward Jesus.

– Originally published in Reaching Rahab: Joining God In His Quest For Friends