Divine Right of Government

The Bible makes it clear there is an obligation to honor and obey government (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17;1 Timothy 2:1,2). But it also makes it clear there is a place for disobeying when required to do what is wrong (Acts 4:19,20; 5:29; Daniel 3:16-18). There is also a clear place for rebuking those in authority when they do wrong (1 Kings 21:17-29; 13:1-10; 2 Samuel 12:1-15). Therefore, the idea that those in charge cannot be questioned is a serious error. But so is our common modern assumption that those in power are virtually always wrong. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Tyranny and anarchy are both destructive. And the one is often the cause of the other. People see an unacceptable political situation and jump from one extreme to the other. Democracy is the standard alternative, but even it can degenerate. When it becomes a tyranny of the majority over the minority, even it can become unjust. There needs to be a concept of justice that is higher than the government, to which it is required to conform. The problem is we do not necessarily have a universally agreed on rule of justice in this country. And to make the civil law an authority that cannot be questioned is also dangerous. The Christian may base such a rule in the commandments of God. But even Christians do not always agree. One temptation is to try use tyrannical methods to impose our idea of justice. This does not work in the long run and frequently results in a backlash. The only workable approach is to try to convince people of your point of view. And that requires  the ability to question the people currently in charge.

This means being willing to put up with people you do not agree with having a freedom to advocate their point of view. It also means being willing to meet them honestly and fairly in the realm of ideas. But merely trying to force your ideas down someone's throat almost never works and only produces hypocrites. This has an effect on Christian legal action. If the intent is to maintain our freedom to express and practice our belief, it is appropriate (though we should carefully pick our battles). But if this is so, we may need to grant with it the option for others we disagree with to express and practice their beliefs, even ones we find abhorrent. However, if our intent is to force others to observe our beliefs without being convinced of them, it is unworkable. Now I am speaking of beliefs and conviction. The government must enforce certain kinds of behaviors. But what those behaviors are need to be arrived at through the free exchange of ideas. And we must allow our opponents the freedom to make their case so we can have the freedom to make ours. Otherwise, we cannot persuade; we can only browbeat.