The idea of submission isn't particularly popular in our day and age, but the Bible teaches a lot about obedience. If one believes that one is justified in doing whatever one can "get away with", then the only reason to submit to anyone else is if you're afraid of resisting. That, and stupidity, is the connotation of being called a sheep for questioning an open invitation to civil disobedience, but as I wrote originally, I think there's a lot of value to a general policy of obeying the rules.
Sure, Patterico and the rest will probably get away with whatever they end up doing (not much, most likely), but to what end? They may succeed at resisting the expansion of stupid campaign finance speech restrictions, and if that's their most important consideration then they'll end up winners in their own eyes. My decision was made with a different calculus, however, because my highest ambition is to affect the world for Christ. That may ocassionally require opposing the forces that dominate the order of our world -- through legal or extra-legal means -- but the Bible is pretty clear in admonishing us that the governments of the world are established by God and should be obeyed.
Romans 13:1-71Everyone must submit himself 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, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For 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 he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
And Paul, there, was writing about the Roman Empire, which was far more oppressive than McCain-Feingold.
Now, I love free speech, and I think campaign finance reform is a stupid joke. Will I vote for candidates who oppose speech restrictions? Yes. Will I write letters to my representatives and urge them to protect my right to free speech? Yes, I already do that. Could speech restrictions eventually impede the cause of Christ? Yes, of course. I never said I was inconvincible. Perhaps Patterico is right and this battle is the one to fight, but if so it's not clear to me. Until it is, I'm going to err on the side of obedience, not because I adore the American government, but because of my love for God.
(HT: Doc Rampage for the pointer to Patterico calling me a sheep.)
"Until it is, I'm going to err on the side of obedience, not because I adore the American government, but because of my love for God."
And because you're a sheep.
Seriously, I'm kidding about the sheep comment. But I am confounded by this: "the Bible is pretty clear in admonishing us that the governments of the world are established by God and should be obeyed."
Wow. All governments of the world?? There's some pretty rotten ones that I think deserve to be resisted.
Patterico: First off, it's not for me to say what you should do, even if you claim to have the same set of priorities that I claim to have.
Second, the worst governments in the world are typically incredibly repressive towards Christianity, which means they fall into the category of governments that would be worth opposing, given the criteria I described above.
Is there any government in the world that you would advocate the overthrow of but which also allows Christians to freely practice and proselytize?
I thought of this post today as I was scrubbing floors and hunting 'round the radio for something to pass the scrubbing time.
This is what I heard:
So. Where does the line get drawn?
The law that preceded this was the law forbidding Jews to bathe in public pools.
When do we refuse to obey those who tell us to do something that is wrong?
This is not about some childish desire to "get away with" naughtiness. It is a principled stand against something which is wrong for the individual and for the country.
The government of my America is established by the people, for the people and of the people, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. Not by Allah. Not by Buddah. Not by Shiva. Not by your God.
Claire: Yes, and the people and their representatives have established certain laws, which Patterico et al are saying we should break. The decision to break the law may or may not be justified in this case, and I was explaining why I think it may not be.
Nazi Germany had a government....
Doesn't mean it should have been obeyed.
Harrison: Right, good job. Gold star for you.
The People established the First Amendment, which has primacy over an unconstitutional law.
Just because the Supreme Court said it was constitutional doesn't mean the Court was right.
The biblical principle is not about whether the goverment is right or not, but what has God commanded and what is illustrated in the lives of those in the Bible.
It is true that at the right time one must obey God over men, but because we are directed by God to obey authorities we must be willing to suffer the consequences of that disobedience. This is why Paul spent most of his life in prison (and you see little complaining). It is why John Hus submitted to being burnt at the stake and many others down through history have willingly suffered the consequeces of disobedience.
In reality, it is often the submission to the consequeces that does more to bring about change than the disobedience it's self. Especially if the sumission is done quietly and in humility.
Consider that Jesus himself submitted to the authorities and didn't even speak to defend himself.