Yes, I think Churchill saw it clearly. Pragmatically democracy may be the best we can do, but that fact alone doesn’t makes it good.
That’s certainly a good first step - get educated. But the issue I’m getting at is deeper than that. It seems clear to me that there are “good” authorities and “bad” authorities. I don’t want to go into any specifics about which I think are good and which are bad, but lets just assume that there are spiritual authorites that would be helpful to submit to, and spiritual authorities that would be decidedly unhelpful (you can disagree at this point if you want). If I simply submit as a matter of course, the outcome seems totally based on the quality of the authority itself. If I choose NOT to submit then I lose any benefit that might come with submission (which I think we both agree can have value). The usual response to this problem is simply to make value judgements about an authority BEFORE I submit. However, it seems obvious to me that I may not be capable of making a correct judgement before submission, i.e. my discernment may be incorrect prior to submission leading me to make wrong choices.
That sounds a little complex, and I think it is. Catholics generally submit whether they understand or not, thus receiving good quality instruction or not, depending on your viewpoint. Protestants seem to submit only when they feel like it, which seems to me to create more problems. Why would I choose submit to an authority who told me I needed to die to myself, or proscribed any kind of prohibition to my ego?? Do you see the problem? What’s the solution?
Edit: Sorry I didn’t read Alun’s question lower down the page which is basically the same as mine. But do you really think that education is the only answer?
I like this approach, but what about Martin Luther? At what point have you completed enough self analysis to say “hey, I think you’re wrong about that!”.
It sounds harsh but I think the attitude of God will be anger and judgement. I didn’t make these rules, but that’s how I understand it to be. This also relates back to the point I raised above. If we have a propoer persepctive of ourselves (deserving nothing but a violent death) then anything we receive is mercy, and God’s judgement in this case is just. He gives mercy to those he chooses to. This is not inherently unjust if we are all deserving of judgement.
Certainly I do, and I think we have two motivations at work, that can conflict with each other. There is the duty to learn the truth, and there is the duty to be a good person. Once you are put in the position to [i]choose[/i] a religion, and the idea that your religious beliefs are [i]up to you [/i]entirely, everything you do from there will be tainted by ego. We have to let ourselves be moved by facts and authorities, from without.
I am going to assume that we're talking about bad authorities that don't seem bad from the subjects point of view. Clearly, knowingly submitting to a wicked authority is a bad thing, I suppose nobody would argue for that. So, that said...
If a person submits to a religious authority because they are ignorant, then whatever else, at least they are humble. To the degree they can reason, it is reasonble to think the authority knows more about it than they do. But what about the person who rebels because they are ignorant? Submission for the sake of submission is a virtue (humility), but is rebellion for the sake of rebellion a virtue? I don't think it is at all. That's why I think education is important to the rebel- it gives them their justified reason, or else, shows them that they have no justified reason.
I think individualism is earned, not a default state.
The solution? Self examination. If you feel like rebelling against a strong authority that is not obviously wicked, assume the problem is with you first, and not them. Come to understand your own ignorance, you own willfullness, your own desire to be cut loose to sin. Most rebellion I think can be squashed by one understanding their place in things.
Ned:
I'm split about this. On the one hand, you know it sounds harsh, and you know that it's tempting to say that God is merciful to everybody who is 'basically a good person'. But if I go that way, that's my own ego talking- I'm trying to make God into who I think he ought to be, and not who He is. Clearly, as you said, God has no obligation to spare us or reward us just for being human beings, so there's no obvious reason that this may not be the case. Still in all, don't say the Scriptures say something about people who never hear about Jesus being judged according to how they respond to the knowledge of good and evil that God has put within all of us? Or am I making that up?
tentative
Jesus challenged the religious leaders of his time, and when the time came, He allowed Himself to be crucified. All in all, I’m not sure if His life could be characterized as primarily one of rebellion or submission. The same pattern plays out in the first Christians thereafter- rebelliously preaching the truth (which in turn was submission to God), then submissively being killed for what they did.
I like what you said about being Christ-like being the most extreme form of individualism- it’s certainly a freedom from many of the other shackles that bind human kind.
I agree, but it’s easier said than done. And there are some times I would say when it’s appropriate to rebel against your authority. Do you agree?
Actually, I WOULD argue for that, but in a slightly different context. This is in essence the whole purpose of evangelism - to convince others to submit to an authority that they otherwise see as unhelpful or irrelevant. So, I would argue that submission to a “bad” authority (my particular one of course) would actually be helpful since the judgement about it being “bad” is itself wrong. Don’t you see this as inevitable for any structure of “absolute truth”? Of course one must be convinced about your belief structure before you would go this far.
Agreed. And this may be by far the best choice. I’m pretty convinced that if I ever make it to heaven there will be a long line ahead of me full of people with less theological understanding but far greater humility that came from obedience and submission to a authoritarian structure that I particularly dislike. Go figure?!
No it’s not. But ignorance is somewhat subjective since no-one can be said to be completely ignorant or educated. Thus, you or I may think we are rebelling based on reason or revealed truth, but we may actually be deluded and doing so based on ignorance. I’m sure Martin Luther struggled with some of these thoughts in his little cell. With this in mind, it seems to me that the only really “safe” place to be is within an authoritarian structure that obsolutely demands obedience. Anything less than this and we’re making a judgement call and hoping for the best, just like Luther. But I think it’s worth the risk given that the alternative seems a little unhealthy itself. Such is my reasoning for protestantism!
I agree. This would probably eliminate 99% of all rebellion against authority and rightly so. The remaining 1% though is probably worthy of discussion. What makes this 1% so special? Are there certain lines that an individual should hold against a spiritual authority? I think there are.
Exactly. That’s always the issue with these things. Not what would I do, but what would God do? It’s way too easy to just read into the bible what we want to see.
Catholics believe this but I’m not sure it gets much of a hearing in protestantism, basically because the biblical justification is slim. Romans 1 seems to imply that those who have no exposure to Christianity will be judged equally since the truth of God should have been plain to them from nature. One can stand this on it’s head and say that this verse implies that some get saved through a faith that derives entirely from observation of nature, but I think that’s a stretch. Paul’s reasoning is negative, not positive. But I suppose it’s possible.
Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [b]19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
[/b]
I’m sure there are another few passages that relate to this issue but I can’t think of them right now.
well excuse me, please get off YOUR high horse. all what you said does is show that you are open to nothing. that is one of the most close-minded comments I have heard in a while. yes, I’m actually trying to be open as well, and that way we can all get along (like kids - and I thought we were higher than elementary level).
besides that, you never backed any of that up. quote scripture? your logic behind it, if any? and calm down, take a breather, and get a grip. PLEASE.
Sure, just like sometimes it may be appropriate to kill a man. What we want to avoid is honoring it as some sort fo virtue, or a sign of intelligence, as is going on now. It’s fine for The World to view things that way, but we can’t let that kind of attitude influence Christianity.
I see what you're saying. I would argue that the person would have to be convinced that the authority wasn't bad before they submitted to it, or else they're being unethical. If I've become convinced that Christianity is a great evil in the world, and nevertheless I submit to Christian authority on the promise of Heaven or social standing, I'd say that's immoral.
If it’s the best choice for an ignorant person to submit to a religious authority, it’s hard to deny that God would take that into consideration when someone submits to the wrong one. But again, Scripture is unclear.
I think it's a power/responsibility thing. If you're going to take it upon yourself to rebel against your religion, then you bear a greater responsibility for choosing the right one, for educating yourself, and most importantly, for not being a stumbling block to anybody else. Even if I became an atheist or some other religion someday, it would be a long time before I would [i]teach[/i] that. Being an apostate is one thing, teaching apostacy is quite another.
Your quote about God’s invisible qualities- that sounds like what we’d call Natural Theology to me. A heathen from a land that hasn’t heard the Gospel could reasonably be expected to learn from looking at his surroundings that there’s a higher Order of some kind, and that Something good is responsible for the creation of all they see, and that they should honor it. But I don’t at all think they should be able to figure out the particulars of Christianity, or even theism necessarily.
No, I don’t agree. Many people reach faith in Christ through a rational process (CS Lewis being one example) but I would say that the majority do not come this way. Most are attracted by some aspect of Christianity (community life, structure) that is slightly disconnected from who God is. Thus they put their trust in God before they really understand much about who he is. In the NT many come to faith through miracles. They see power displayed and are either scared or impressed into believing in whoever is behind such power. More a visceral reaction than any intellectual process. It’s too bad that we don’t see evangelism in this light today. I think many more would come to Christ if we used other methods aside from simply appealing to the intellect and understanding, especially as Paul points out that intellectually the “cross” is a hindrance to salvation.
1Corinthians
17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
Maybe, but I agree the scriptural evidence is shaky. I think it’s always best to assume the worst and then act accordingly. Better to be pleasantly surprised than disappointed at the end. There are no second chances.
