The Narrow Path Ministries

Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this forum, although I have been downloading and listening to Steve's MP3's for a couple months.

I just read your topical article on pacifism and was refreshed to actually find someone deal with it in a thorough and Biblical manner. I have been in the military for 25 years, and I have to admit that many of those years I have held my own contradictory beliefs as I tried to sort out what the Bible really says about the issues. I think one of the things that kept me from being more objective in dealing with scripture, was that pretty much every argument I ever heard was from an emotional standpoint by people affected by war (Vietnam Vets and their families), or were from religous people and was limited to "thou shalt not kill". It is easy to discredit those two arguments with a simple look at the OT, and all the killing that God sanctioned (something which I have still not rectified in my own thinking).

I am in almost total agreement with Steve, but I think there are a couple issues I would add as maybe not being the final answer, but add to the discussion somewhat and have helped me sort this out. The issue for me when I was younger was always to try and answer the "Thou shalt not kill" argument. I have come to the conclusion that that is not the issue. I think the crux of the issue is twofold. Who am I as a believer, and what are my responsibilities.

1. Who am I? We could spend hours on this very question and not exhaust it, but I don't think we need to for the purpose of this topic. Scripture is very clear that I have a new nature, that I am a new creation, created unto good works. I am to be salt and light to the world. And the list could go on. In basic training, soldiers are taught to charge the hill, with rifle and bayonet in hand yelling, "Kill!, Kill!, Kill!". Where are the good works? How can I be salt and light in a situation like this? It does seem rather impossible unless we divide our conscience, and limit our good works to our fellow soldiers. In light of this, I believe that when it comes to war, all OT passages about David killing in battle, etc. become irrelevant, because he was under a covenant which seemed to promise a physical kingdom on this earth, Where the Kingdom we are in is Spiritual, and if you have listened to Steve's tapes on church history, it is plain to see that spiritual Battles are not won in Physical wars, by physically forcing people to agree with you or by eradicating those who are heretics.
2. What is my responsibility? I believe the we have a responsibility to the civil government based on 1 Peter 2:13 and following. I'm sure that most would agree here, but that many are going to dissagree as to how that is defined. This is my thinking, and I would appreciate anyone telling me so, if they think I am out to lunch. We all have different roles, just as in a marriage, man carries the responsibility before God for the marriage (that does not absolve the wife of personal responsibility though for her behavior), and Christ took the responsibility before God for the sins of those who would believe, so the Government is ordained by God to govern, and this includes making corporate decisions for the nation on issues such as war. I believe these decisions are between God and the deciding authorities until such time as it calls for me to personally act in violation of my conscience. In other words, if there is a draft, I believe it is the responsibility of the person who receives the draft notice to respond favorably to that notice and enter the military. However, I do not believe they should willingly be ushered into the infantry, especially if they hold a pacifist viewpoint. There are many options in the military for non-combatants. A simple example, our Army Medics in Iraq treat American soldiers and Iraqis both.

I am out of time or I would try and explain this better. I am interested in any responses you all have on this.

Marshall

Hi Marshall. I don't know if my ideas will be new to you or not and I have not heard all of Steve's take on this issue outside of what he's said on the radio (I don't have an MP3 player). And I'm far from being a Bible scholar by any means.
This is obviously a controversial topic and I would say that most Christians would disagree with my standpoint. I do believe in what the Mennonites term as passive non-resistance. And I base my beliefs on several different Scriptures.

Matthew 5:39 "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

I know this is referring to our personal relationships, but it still impacts my thinking. Also, read the rest of the passage. Jesus goes on to talk about loving our enemies. And earlier in Mat. 5, Jesus says "Blessed are the peacemakers. . ."

2 Timothy 2:3-4 "Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs-he wants to please his commanding officer."

This passage tells us that Christ is our commanding officer and that we should not get involved in the issues of this world. The Amish have taken this to the extreme. We all have to decide what this really means to us. To me, war and politics, would be classified as "civilian affairs" that have very little to do with our Great Commission and can actually get in the way of it and seriously injure our witness. It would be difficult to sort out where our loyalties lie. To we pledge our allegience to Christ or the State?

Ephesians 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

We have a real spiritual battle to fight, as you hinted at in your post. It seems to me that we are to love people and fight the spiritual battles. Yes, it is the gov't's responsibility to defend our nation, but that doesn't mean that we, as individual Christians, should do that. The draft would make the decision difficult and would require much prayer. But at this current time, it's not an issue.

HTH.

4 blessings – Thanks for your reply. The article I referred to on pacifism actually is not an mp3, and is accessed off the main page by clicking the link "Topical Articles". You can't miss it, the is a flashing rainbow text that say "new" right beside it. I highly recommend you read it. It is very thorough, and regarding the verses you quoted, I know I could do no better than what Steve has done.

I really didn't have time to fully explain where my thinking lies regarding responsibility to government, so I will try and say it a little fuller at this time. I don't see how we can separate legitimate governmental responsibilities like defending the nation (or me), from my responsibilities as a Christian. Are not the people of the Nation the hands and feet of the government. The reality is that the person defending me is not a government, but a neighbor in the service of the government. How can I say that that person has a responsibility given them by God to both risk their life and kill if necessary, therefore presuming that it is a righteous calling to some degree, and yet say it would be a sin for me as a Christian to be the one the government uses.

In any relationship where there is a requirement for submission, there is also a level of having to accept the authority and the decisions that God has given that person, organization, government, or whatever, a right/responsibility to make. That does not mean that I agree with or support everything they do, but I am wondering if my responsibility requires me to limit my separation to individual acts that would be required of me, rather than a refusal to cooperate with what that authority is all about. An example would be a marriage, where the man is not being the godly person that he should be, yet the woman is a godly woman who wants to do Gods will. God does not call her to separate herself from the person he has placed in authority in her life. When she is submissive, it does not say that she agrees with everything that he stands for or does. At the same time, there may be individual acts that he wants her to do that if she does them, she would be disobedient to God. It would be wrong for her, in submission to her husband to stop praying and deny her faith. We have a relationship to the government of the United States that God placed us in and has given us responsibilities in. In many ways it can be like that bad marriage. I am required to pay taxes. My taxes may be used to pay for abortions. If I am a strict pacifist , I have to realize that my taxes will be used to train soldiers to kill, or to purchase bombs that will kill innocent lives. How can I truly say that I am not supporting killing. I am by very nature as an American, supporting my country and what it does, just as a woman who feeds her husband, does his laundry, etc., is supporting the things he does that she disagrees with. The issue is not a black and white should I or shouldn't I. It is an issue of degrees. Do I help pay for the bomb, and the salary of the sailor who pushes the button, and then righteously say because the Bible says I am to turn the other cheek, I won't serve in that Navy even as a cook?

Now let me translate how my thinking applies to the military. To keep it less controversial, I am totally relegating my discussion here to being drafted at this point, and not voluntary service.

God has given the authorities in government the responsibility to make decisions on war, not me. I do not believe it is my job to decide if a war is a just war or not (although I am not saying we should not be discerning to some degree). Just as God is going to hold the man accountable for his household, so I believe that God will hold the people he has placed in authority accountable for their decisions (although I am not naive, and do believe the just as a woman can suffer the consequences of bad behavior/decisions by her husband, the people suffer the consequences of bad behavior/decisions by their leaders). In my 25 years of service, I have seen many places a person can serve in the military. I serve as a chaplain's assistant. Although I spend my time working with the families of soldiers that are mobilized, or ministering to soldiers needs, my duty in combat is limited to that of a body guard for the chaplain in case he is attacked. If he was attacked I would be willing to shoot and kill to protect him. There are many other positions that would not even require that. Medic is one. By law they are not even allowed to carry a weapon of any kind let alone use one, and would be court martialed if they did. In some situations, I might be ordered to do something I find in total violation of my faith. At that time, I would have to make the hard decision to choose to obey God rather than men, and also be willing to suffer the consequences (i.e. court martial, prison, or whatever) of that decision. I believe that many of the atrocities that happened in Vietnam by American troops were not because it was or was not a just war, but because individual soldiers did not have the moral courage to say, "This is wrong, and I will not be a part of it".

Although it would be much easier to avoid the situation all together. how can we as Christians provide that moral checks and balances that help a government to stay committed to God's moral law if we abandon any responsibility in that government. If we hold a view that being in the military is wrong, that would necessarily lead to the conclusion that the people who are out their protecting us and fighting in foreign lands should be the unsaved, reprobate, immoral and unrestrained. The reality is that the military is full of good, moral, Christian men and women, and if it weren't for the moral/ethical tenor that they bring to the military, who knows how many other instances such as the prison abuse we would be dealing with in Iraq. If you withdraw the Christians from the military, you also withdraw much of the moral restraint which keeps it in check.

This is becoming much longer than I anticipated, so I will end here. I recognize that I have not quoted much scripture here, and am dealing more in the application of what I believe are scriptural concepts. The main reason I bring all this up is that I believe we need to think through and discuss this relationship with the government more, and I don't believe a total withdrawal by the Christian community from anything that requires the use of force is necessarily a truly Christian response. I personally would feel much better knowing that the police officer patrolling my streets is a Christian, and will exercise his authority in a godly way. The big question when it comes to responsibility to government is, "How do we balance that responsibility with the mandate to be in the world and not of it?" Not an easy question to answer.

I think that in this whole discussion there are some assumptions that are being made that need to be considered; I don't think the right questions are being asked. First of all, there is an assumption based on an interpretation of Romans 13 here that starts this whole thread. I know of at least four interpretations of Romans 13. 1) The traditional interpretation is that the secular government is created by God to do certain things, and usually people say that this passage is a description of "good government", though you never find that said in the text, it is only read into it. 2) All Christians should obey government no matter what. Those who advocate this interpretation do so because there is no definition of if this passage is speaking of good and just civil government. THey would thus advocate if the Nazi's told you to wipe out a million Jews, to disobey that order from the civil government is tantamount to disobeying God. 3) Another interpretation is that this isn't about "obeying" civil government, (since obedience is an act of conformity and in the previous chapter Romans 12 Paul tells the Roman Chrisitians to not be conformed to this world), but rather "Let every soul offer onself voluntarily to undergo an ordeal by the governing authorities". If Paul was preaching to obey Caesar, then why did Caesar kill him? If he was an advocate for Christians to be obedient to Rome, then why did they persecute us? Why was Jesus murdered on a cross which was reserved for political enemies of Rome? Romans 13, in this interpretation, is encouraging the Christians to handle persecution through non-resistance, just as Jesus said resist not the evil person. 4) Another interpretation that I know of is that Romans 13 is not about civil government at all, but about ruling synogogue authorities. Mark Nanos in his book The Mystery of Romans make this case. He insists that the early Christians were meeting in the synogogues also, and that the word "rulers" and "governing authorities" is a reference to the synogogue leaders, not civil government. Many scholars have been puzzled by the abrupt change in Romans 13:1-7 if it is referring to civil government, so much so that there have been questions about it being a legitimate entry by Paul. Nanos believes that vs 4, and the reference to sword, is not about a real sword, (the greek word is something like Manchuria, a judicial dagger, not a sword proper) but about synogogue authorities being able to excommunicate people. Also the word rulers and authorities is the same word that Jesus used when he said that his disciples would be brougt before synoguge authorities and rulers in Luke. I think this interpretation is compelling, but I like the 3rd one also.

I think the real issue is this: we are citizens of another kingdom, the kingdom of God. How then can we participate in the affairs of another kingdom. If we are ambassadors for Christ, how can we be a part of another government? The ambassador for France doesn't take part in the American voting system does he? No, of course not; he is French and acts on behalf of the French government. The early church frowned upon military service. Indeed it is hard to love your enemies when you are trying to kill them. Jesus said to love your enemies and the Rabbis said "if your enemy is on the way to kill you, kill him first". I don't think that military service is something the the Christian can do. I know that there are jobs in the government which are considered non-lethal, I have a few friends who were paper-pushers, and I also have a friend who is a U.S. Army Ranger. I think that for the Christian, regardless of job duty in the military, joining the military is not an option. Jesus said not to swear oaths, but the one who joins the military has to.

There is also an element of Civil Religion involved in military service. When Americans cry out to "God" is it really YHWH of the Old Testament that they cry out to? There is no recognition of the Lordship of Christ in the constitution of the U.S. and even the treaty of tripoli in 1796 states that this isn't a christian country. Some of the founding fathers were Christian, but there were also many who were Deists, Unitarians, and many were Masons (Check out the layout of Washington D.C., it is all laid out in Masonic symboltry). I don't think that it is okay for Christians to be nationalistic and patriotistic; it is a form of idolatry. It is interesting to compare the symbols and language used by both religion and government. We as Christians have sacred texts, sacred places, sacred people, sacred symbols. So does the government. The flag is the most obvious symbol used by the U.S. government, but also the eagle. Christians have the "fish" symbol. The U.S. government has sacred text (the constitution and bill of rights), sacred places (Washington D.C., the Twin Towers sadly enough, Mt. Rushmore, sacred people Washington, LIncoln, Jefferson and many of the founding fathers). Christians have the Bible as our sacred text, the church as a place, and the saints of long past as our sacred people. In Civil Religion, the government must kill to reinforce the belief system of the Civil Religion; war serves as this means. By sacrificing some of its own citizens, the whole of society comes together, united in patriotistic belief, which reinforces the power of the government.

In short, I don't think that it is allright or okay to join with the civil government, especially in a military position. You said that as a bodyguard for the chaplain you would have to kill to protect him, but that is not abiding by Jesus's command to love your enemies, and isn't it better for the chaplain to die then to kill, as Jesus himself died instead of killing those who were persecuting him? Isn't that the example that Christ left us with? Sorry this is long, it is a really complicated subject.

Yes, it definitely is a complicated subject, and I am glad to see it being discussed here intelligently and in an irenic tone. I have points of agreement with everyone who has participated in this thread, and points of disagreement. My position is that expressed in my article on the topic mentioned above. I certainly think discussion like this is thought-provoking and positive. I also believe that it is complex enough to require that we extend grace to those who put all the pieces together differently than we do—though this does not preclude our attempts to convince them of what we think to be a better way.

As for the four options about Romans 13:1-7, I have to remain in the first camp. The second is clearly contrary to the practice of the apostles and the righteous ones of the Old Testament. The third depends too much on the retranslation of a single word, but does not (to my mind) make adequate sense of the rest of the passage. The fourth presupposes a connection between the Roman churches and the synagogue that, I think, did not exist. While it is probable that some churches may have used the synagogue facilities for meetings in Israel, it does not seem likely that this was the case in Gentile lands. We find more often that the church met in homes (Acts 2:46/12:12/ 16:15/ Col.4:15/ Philem.2), and this was specifically stated to be so in the case of the Romans, to whom chapter 13 was addressed (Rom.16:5). Meetings held in the homes of Christians could hardly have been under the influence or control of synagogue leaders.

Anon and Steve, Thanks for your response. I have taken a while to respond simply because I have been gone a lot, and I wanted to take more time to study some of the passages cited, and to read through more posts to get an idea of where people in the forum are coming from. I don’t have all the answers, and my biggest reason for posting was to lay out where my journey of understanding has taken me so far, and to get feedback to help me go further. It appears to me that there are assumptions stated throughout the forum that I am really struggling with, and seems to me to be contradictory, either in the scriptures themselves, or in the understanding and application of them. I will try to explain my struggles below.

1, One is that God ordains and establishes government, but at the same time, a government system is a worldly, evil system, and therefore we are to not have anything to do with it. Isn’t it only as evil and worldly as those who work in it? It does not make sense to me that God would ordain that there is a system or Government out there to protect you and I, and then say that we are not of this world, and therefore it would be a violation of that citizenship to be involved in that system/government.

2. Another assumption I see is that since we are citizens of Heaven, God has not placed us in a position of responsibility that would be similar to that of a dual citizenship. I have many relationships in life, some I have a choice over, and some I don’t. If I were born a slave, I would have responsibilities to my master and to my God. That relationship to my master would not be a violation of my citizenship in Heaven. Rather it would be a fulfillment of who I am as a Citizen of Heaven, to serve my master to the best of my ability within the confines of what my Christian faith would allow. I would have both obligation and responsibility to both, yet by God’s law I would be expected to choose Him over my master in areas of conflict. It would be irrelevant in this case whether I had a godly master or not . I did not choose to be an American. Yet I am, and just as God has placed me in subjection (as a citizen) to our governing authorities, he has placed them in authority over me. I am, by God’s design, a dual citizen. The expectation is not that I shun my country and any involvement in its operation, but that I fulfill my responsibilities to the best of my ability except in areas of moral conflict. I am to choose my Heavenly citizenship over my earthy citizenship when there is a conflict between the two. I do not understand how we can make the distinction between the two citizenship’s, as if we are capable of choosing only our Heavenly one. We pay taxes, we enjoy all the benefits of our country’s protection, we abide by its traffic regulations, and pay fines when we don’t, we work according to labor laws, and many more other things. Our involvement in these is irrelevant of whether we have a godly government or not. They are responsibilities that we recognize that God has given us and it is a relationship that God has placed us in. The same would go for a job. Have I violated my citizenship because I am in an obligatory relationship with an employer who is not a Christian? In every relationship we have there are expectations and unwritten contracts. It is the nature of any relationship whether it be a person, an employer, a church or even a government. It is also the nature of any relationship to have to set boundaries, and make choices to violate the expectations or unwritten contracts and suffer the consequences for those choices. Because we don’t want to be in a position to make these choices, or to suffer the consequences for them, does that mean we avoid the relationships all together? There are times when I would have to agree that the right choice is to avoid the relationship, but my point with government is that we already have the relationship and citizenship, and it is not a matter of do I or don’t I, but to what degree.

3. I also struggle with many of the interpretations and applications of Matt 5. I would not have a problem with applying it in the simplistic and literal way that people talk about when they quote phrases like “love your enemies”, “turn the other cheek”, and “go the extra mile” if they were consistent with the rest of the passage. The problem is that I don’t know anyone who has gouged out their eye (vs 29) and thrown it away to avoid sinning. And I don’t know anyone who is, or believes that they can be perfect (vs 48). Either the passage is literal, or it is not. The context of the passage is clearly that of one under the law who must live a perfect life to be saved (“... than for your whole body to be thrown in hell” vs 29, “That you may be sons of your heavenly father.” vs 45). Even if we are to look at individual elements, is it hating my enemy to protect my family, or is it loving my family. When God sent Christ to the cross, did he hate Christ, or was it an act of love toward us. When I am willing to protect my family, it is not out of anger, hate or anything else. In fact I would rather they became Christians, and we became friends. If a president makes a decision to go to war, is it necessarily out of hate or revenge? Also, looking at the other references here, I would have to ask for a definition of enemy. All other references in this passage are personal, relational interactions with individuals around us. They are individual relationships that I have, not corporate relationships that my country has, or relationships of responsibility that someone in government might have. Someone who hits me on the cheek, is not out to kill me, but to insult me. That is personal. Or the reference to someone suing you. In personal relationships, God has given someone else the authority and responsibility for establishing justice, not me. I am to seek in all ways to restore the relationship, and be salt and light. Protecting against someone trying to kill my family, or me, is not seeking justice, it is protection. When it is my government that is not just, He claims the responsibility and tells us that vengeance is reserved for Himself. In our personal relationships, we have an ability to be salt and light in way that we don’t when it is a corporate relationship between governments. I am not saying I have the exact answer, but just to say that the simplistic and literal application of this is what Christ has in mind for us is highly suspect to me, especially when we don’t see Christ applying it that way with his disciples. One time he sends them out in two’s with swords, and in the Garden when Jesus is arrested, at least Peter is armed. What purpose could they possibly have for swords except to protect against the many bandits on the roads? Surely, if the literal interpretation/application of Matt 5 was pacifism, as a minimum, he would have made the disciples get rid of their swords. While there are many truths for today from the first few chapters of Matt and Luke, the context is clearly that of what it would really take to be saved under the law. Over and over, Christ says, “To enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you must ...”. Finally in Matt 19:25, the disciples reply in astonishment, “Who then can be saved?” And Jesus replies, “What is impossible for man is possible for God.” To follow the law to the extent that a person could be saved would require the extremist of lifestyles, to include totally forsaking family, money, and all comforts in life, living only to sacrifice and serve God, in perfection of attitude and behavior. This is clearly shown in Matt 5 and I think there is quite a bit of hyperbole there to make the point.

I know I have rattled on, but just want to respond to a couple more things briefly from the above posts.

1. I don’t believe that the term “civil religion” is an accurate term, or is really the issue. I don’t serve my country because it is or isn’t Christian. I don’t worship the US flag, or country. I serve it because I believe God has placed me here and given me a responsibility. I would think the same if I was in Peru or Russia. My service to my country is a service to God, and only stops being so when I choose to obey my country over God when there is a conflict between the two. Outside of the pacifist issue (that we disagree on), I would like anyone to show me where serving my country has caused me to make choices that conflict with my Christian values. In fact, just the opposite has been true. I have had opportunities to build schools and Little League Ball Fields in Oregon, distribute Bibles and present the Gospel on numerous occasions, counsel soldiers going through marital problems, etc. I have never been asked to lie, cheat, bully, extort or kill innocent civilians. I believe 99% of soldier I know would say the same thing.

2. I don’t see, after studying Romans 13, how anything but a civil government can be indicated there.

3. I would apply much of what I stated above regarding the context of Matt 5 to that of Oaths. To swear an oath from a scriptural standpoint appears to be looking to something outside of oneself and ones word to gain credibility, rather than letting ones integrity be enough. To make an Oath in our culture today is part of making something a legal binding contract. I promised my wife I would love, honor and cherish her till death do us part. It was my yes saying it, not some other authority outside of me. When I took an oath to serve my country, I did not swear by anything. I was saying yes, I do commit this.

I know in my human reasoning I am probably full of contradictions and trust you all will point them out to me.

Marshall

Bradshaw:

I will try to respond to your response of the previous response of the previous response ad infinitum. I differ in some ways than Steve's answers; he is a little more integrative than I am, but this subject is an important issue for me because of its implications to power, the kingdom of God, the State and the rest. I first want to say that I respect people in the military, my father was in the military. I worked as a work study for a counseling office that dealt with veterans; these people had their lives ruined by war and seeing the effect of it some 30 years later...all the friends they lost, people that they killed that weighs on their soul...it only strengthens my resolve to not choose war as a legitimate option. I will attempt to share my take on your issues, which you are not alone in.
First, it is true that there are scriptures that state that God establishes governments, most references in the old testament. There is an element of sovereignty that is assigned to God, and this is undeniable. I often see that nation-states are usually raised up to punish other nation-states. For me, that is their purpose, yet I don't think that God gives favor to a nation, say a pagan nation, so that they can go and slaughter babies and rape women and commit war crimes. There is still an element of free will involved in it. Some wonder at the command to go and slaughter entire towns. The usual answer is that Israel was commanded to do so in order to protect that which was coming = Christ, that the physical seed of Christ would still be intact and kept. Others say that because as Paul says, what happened to them in the Old Testament is an example for us, the wars of the Old Testament are a shadow, a symbol so to speak of our spiritual war and represent spiritual realities, just like the Temple did before the time of Christ. I think that there is a time element involved. Daniel says in his prophecies that there would be four kingdoms. THe Babylonian, Medes-Persians, Greeks, and Romans. THen, the Kingdom of God would be established and destroy all of those kingdoms and be established forever. THe point is, the kingdom of God has been established; these earthly forms of government are irrelevant. All that matters now is the kingdom of God. We are either in or out. I know that is simplistic and that may not be an answer, but this is how I see it. I don't leave a place for any other kingdom or government. To say that the government is here to "protect me"...I have serious doubts about their ability to protect, but it is up to God wether I live or do, insomuch as I am obedient. I largely do think it is a violation of our citizenship to be involved in their government. YOu are correct in understanding my assertion. This is why I do not vote. I have to choose between one man who chooses war and inevitably authorizes the killing of his brother who is a fellow christian, or a man who loves the deeds of darkness. How is that a meaningful choice? As I asserted in my earlier analogy about the French ambassador, do they get involved in american government or are they a liason between teh two? Just as the French ambassador, we are to be a liason between the two, and the two are at war, wether it is U.S. government or any government, the world is at war with God.
I think that the slave-master analogy doesn't work. You had a choice to join the military at this point at least. No one forced you. It is a decision of your own volition, which I respect. We were born in America, but aren't we Christians first; hasn't God made one new man out of all the people, wether Jew or Greek? Aren't we as Christians a Holy Nation, as Peter asserts? I am thankful to live in America; I don't know of any other place to live. I would prefer to have a relationship with the world governments that is less integrative. I have no problem speaking to the government to tell them the commands of Christ, who by the way is making a claim on all the world as rightful lord, but I don't want to do it as a member of their government. It seems a little hypocritical to me like telling your friend to quit drinking while you light up a cigarette.
Third, there is for sure an element of hyperbole involved in Matt 5. But most people apply the hyperbole in non-literal ways. To turn the other cheek is to not respond in a similar manner; we don't return evil for evil, but rather overcome evil with good, though I have heard that there are those who have been struck literally and turned the other side of their face. There is also an assumption being made that when a person is in a situation that appears to be life threatening. It is that the would be killer is only determined to kill and there is no other choice. The whole "what would you do if your (fill in name here) was about to be killed or whatever" is a bit simplistic in that it only determines that the would be killer would only kill. Also, Jesus's references to going out and getting two swords or having swords Luke explains in that Jesus would fulfill Isaiah's prophecy that "he would be numbered with criminals" not as an act of self-defense. It is also not swords in a traditional sense, but traveling daggers, not used for military purposes.
The term "Civil Religion" was coined by J.J. Rouseau and revived by Robert Bellah in the 1960's to describe the merger between nationalism and religion. I think it is a valid description. And is worship anything less but service? To say that American troops are not asked to kill civilians is an accurate statement; I don't think that our troops are trained to do so, but that doesn't mean that US troops aren't killing Christians, even by accident, as has happened in Iraq. To serve in a miltary situation is only furthering that, wether it is support services. Are those who sign the papers that send out the bombs and guns any less guilty than those who use them?
Many see Romans 13 as the pinnacle chapter about government, but it is wedged in there so absurdly, that is why some scholars do question it. I understand the passage, and the rest of the N.T. as saying that Christians are to "offer themselves from ones own free will to undergo an ordeal as caused by the governing authorities" and pray that the governing authorities would leave us in peace to go about the business of the kingdom of God. I will attach in another post with either a link or the whole article attached about Romans 13 from what I consider a good perspective.
Finally, I want to say that I respect those who are in the military; I have a few close friends who are in, one who is a Ranger and has been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I worry about their safety and as these wars drag on it only makes things worse in my opinion. This is a very emotional subject that I know that I am attached to, so I hope that you understand that I am not raising an attack against any military member, but commenting on the question at hand. Regards, Anon

This is an article from a website www.jesusradicals.com and I think is a good explanation of Romans 13. I hope it helps.

Deconstructing Romans 13: Verse 1-2
Nekeisha Alexis-Manners

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" -Gideons International Bible

"Everyone 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." - NIV

INTRODUCTION
Obey the law of the land. When dealing with the question of obedience or disobedience to the state, this is the standard Christian response. The only time disobedience is allowed is when the ruling of the government is in direct conflict with the word of God. Otherwise, we are bound by a Christian duty to do what the state says. Despite a New Testament filled with disobedient disciples and a disobedient Messiah in Christ, Romans 13 is the only reason for this strong belief in and support of the state. Perhaps this faith is misplaced, however, due to an incorrect reading of the first verses of that chapter.
CONTEXT
Romans 13, is more of a continuation of Romans 12 than most Christians realize. Chapter 12 describes how we as Christians are called to interact with the rest of the world. We are called to "present [our] bodies as a living sacrifice to God" (v. 1), to avoid conformity (v. 2) and to be humble (v. 3). The body of Christ is also described and its members are encouraged to use the spiritual gifts they've been given for the benefit of the Church (v. 4-8) characteristics we should have including love and affection are outlined (v. 9-13). The key portion of Romans 12 that carries over into Romans 13 is how Christians are called to deal with persecution. As believers in Christ, Christ demands that we offer only blessings to those that wish us harm. We are not to seek revenge on those that harm us, but God asks us to pursue the difficult task of doing good to those who commit evil against us. The chapter ends with the words "do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Keep all of this in mind as you read on.
Like the scriptural context of Chapter 12, the historical context is also very important. Paul is writing to the church at a time when Christ's people are being persecuted at the hands of the law. One can imagine the climate of fear and anger, and the sense of retaliation that must have been in people's minds. In Romans 12, Paul's words are a caution against the use of revolutionary violence towards the state. They are not to commit the same evil and inflict the same punishment that the government uses against them. Rather Christians are to bless them and do good in return. It is in this vein that Romans 13 begins.
SUBJECT/SUBMIT
Before we get into the heart of Romans 13 v. 1, let's look at the meaning of the words submit and subject. According to the New Lexicon version of the Oxford Dictionary, the verb form of these words (which is what is being referred to in the text) is as follows:

subject - to cause to submit; to cause to undergo
submit - to cause to undergo; to offer oneself of one's free will [to submit oneself to an ordeal]; to cease to offer resistance.

As we can see, to subject or to submit does not mean to obey. In fact, obey means to act in conformity with and as I mentioned earlier in Romans 12, to be in conformity with anything or anyone beside God is sinful. As such the first misreading of Romans 13 comes from a simple vocabulary mistake! According to the meanings of these two words, the first part of the verse in question should be as follows:

"Let every soul offer oneself of one's own free will to undergo an ordeal by the governing authorities."

By the very meaning of the words themselves, the first and most quoted verse in Romans 13 is not a call to obedience. In fact verse 1 is reinforced by the 2nd verse which also says not to resist the government. Instead, Paul is asking the people willingly offer themselves up for persecution for Jesus' sake in the same way that Jesus instructs his people to do in the sermon on the mount: "Blessed are you when they revile you and persecute you, and speak all kinds of evil against you for my name's sake" (Matthew 5 v. 11).

GOVERNING AUTHORITIES

The second order of business when dealing with Romans 13 is to describe what the Word says about the governing authorities in the first place. In the Old Testament, 1 Samuel ch. 8 marks the beginning of authority as we know it today. The common belief that modern government began with Mosaic Law is simply not true. As theologian Jacques Ellul writes in his book Anarchy and Christianity, the legacy of Moses concerning ruling was quite different:

"As already sketched out, perhaps by Moses, the people settled by clans and tribes. The 12 tribes all had their own heads, but they had little concrete authority. When an important decision had to be made,, with ritual sacrifices and prayers for divine inspiration, a popular assembly was held and this had the last word" (italics added).

This doesn't sound like the top down authority of a state or a king. Rather it sounds more like the communal decision-making process that the early church probably took part in. In 1 Samuel however, the people ask for government in the form of a king so that they could be like other nations. It is important to note two things here: 1- if such an institution had existed during the time of Moses, there would be no need for the people to ask for it, reinforcing the observation I made earlier. 2- God's response to the people's request is essential to understanding His position on government. He says to Samuel:

"'Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected but they have rejected me as their king as they have done from the day I brought them out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me for other gods, so they are doing to you'" (italics added).

The desire of the Israelites for a government other than the leading of God is considered an outright rejection of Him. Furthermore, it is classified on the same lines as idolatry because He considers it serving another god.

Flash forward to the New Testament. Perhaps the biggest argument against government can be found in Christ's encounter with Satan during His temptation. Satan offers three things to Christ, to ease his hunger and break his fast, to test the protection of the Father . . . and to take possession of the kingdoms of the earth. How Christians overlook this, including myself, is beyond me. After showing Christ all the kingdoms of the world -- a reference to all earthly rule -- Satan says this, "'I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it was given to me and I give it to anyone I want to'" (italics added).

It has been asserted that since Satan is the Father of Lies, he is probably lying concerning the amount of control he has over the governments of the world, but the every nature of the encounter between Christ and Satan begs to differ. There are instances in the New Testament when Christ is very candid about who is a hypocrite and who is a liar. In this case, He is, standing in front of the king of all lies who is telling Him that he owns the nations of the world from the top down and what is Christ's response? Jesus doesn't call Him a liar. He doesn't even refute Satan's statement". Rather he accepts what Satan says and merely responds saying, "'Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only". This is a clear indication that all authority on this earth that is not led by God himself belongs to Satan. As such, the question at hand is, why in the world would God instruct us to obey it? The answer is that he doesn't. With God, there is no, "obey the government, except when it disobeys Me". There is only serve God, without regard for the institutions that God has allowed Satan to control on this earth.

AUTHORITY FROM GOD

It is believed by most American Christians, again based on Romans 13, that God is not only in charge of government (usually only the American government at that), but that He also supports, agrees with and sanctions all that they do. In order to make this assertion, they usually turn to the latter part of verse 1, which reads, "For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God". We must break this down as well to get to the true meaning of that statement.

"For there is no authority except from God" This is a given. Nothing in this world can be given any power unless God gives the okay. Even Satan's power is allowed to exist and function on a limited basis by God as seen in the case of Job where Satan literally has to ask permission to persecute the righteous man. Not only that but in Revelations ch. 20 4, 7-8, after Satan is thrown into a bottomless pit, God will release him from his prison and allow him to "go out and deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth". However, just because God allows Satan to exist and wreak havoc, doesn't mean that they are on the same team. Another way to look at this is to think about evil. Just because evil has dominion on earth, doesn't mean that God himself is evil. In the same way, the fact that God authorizes government on the earth doesn't mean that he agrees with it or ordains it.

This is reiterated in the second part of the statement, "and the authorities that exist are appointed by God". Again, we need to look at vocabulary to clear up the current misunderstanding of the text. Appointment is not the same as agreement. In fact the meaning of appoint is as follows:

appoint - to select for an office or position, to set; to choose

God chose Pharaoh as the king that would deliberately ignore his warnings to release his people. In fact on more than one occasion He purposefully closed Pharaoh 's ears to His words. That doesn't mean that Pharaoh and God were bosom buddies, or that Pharaoh would go unpunished for his role in keeping the Israelites enslaved. As stated by John Howard Yoder in the book The Politics of Jesus when writing about Romans 13:

"God is not said to create or institute or ordain the powers that be, but to order them, to put them in order . . .to tell them where they belong, what is their place"

The sanctification of government as a holy entity by God is completely absent in these verses. Existence is not enough to command holiness. As a result, government simply is - nothing more and nothing less.

CONCLUSION

So what does this all mean? Basically, there is not enough Biblical evidence in verses 1 and 2 of Romans 13 to support the popular belief that Christians have a duty to obey the government. Obedience is not mentioned here once, nor is the belief that government and God are best friends — rather, they are opposing forces. What the verses do show is that the Christian's obligation is only to accept the persecution that is brought on by government or any other enemy as the Christians in China are doing today and the Apostles did throughout the New Testament. They are a call to follow in the footsteps of Jesus who, despite His innocence and the power He had to destroy all those who participated in His crucifixion, allowed Himself to be destroyed. Where God is concerned, to be His is to be a slave to righteousness, obeying Him and Him alone. The law of the land is disregarded in our daily lives. If following God is within the guidelines of the state, then that is all well and good. Similarly, if a call from God does not fit in the letter of that law, that is also fine. Neither instance matters to those who are committed to Him because, in the end, our responsibility is to God and God alone.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

APPENDIX
1 Peter 2 v. 13

When Romans 13 is interpreted against its traditional meaning, 1 Peter 2 v. 13 is usually used by supporters of obedience to the government as a trump card. As a result, I included a short analysis of 1 Peter to illustrate how it reinforces this "new" interpretation of Romans 13, rather than contradicts it.

There are several similarities between 1 Peter and Romans 13. Like Paul, Peter is writing to the church at a time when they are undergoing persecution by the governing authorities. Peter tells the people that, in this time, they should not conform (v.14 - same as Romans 12 v.2), stresses the importance of keeping their faith (v.7-8 - same as Romans 12 v. 11-13) and encourages them to love (v.22, ch. 2 v.17 - same as Romans 12 v.9). Much of the first chapter is spent congratulating the church because they are maintaining their faith in Christ "though now for a while . . . you have been grieved by various trials" (v.6), and urges them to continue persisting. It is in this spirit that we go into second chapter of Peter.

In order to understand 1 Peter 2 v. 13, it is critical that one understands the verses 11-25. In this section of the chapter, Peter's main focus is to instruct the people to do good in the face of evil, just as Romans 12 14-21 does. Peter is echoing Paul's command to overcome the evil they are facing with good. Peter states in ch. 2 v. 12 that they should do good works so that evildoers will observe them and they should glorify God when it is their time to be persecuted. The purpose for doing this is not to show obedience to the government, but to expose their hypocrisy and to "silence the ignorance of foolish and ignorant men" (v. 15). [Take note here: Peter is calling the government ignorant and foolish!] By abstaining from any wrongdoing against Christ's commands and not resisting any suffering that comes their way, their actions will be "commendable before God" (v. 21). By doing good, their persecutors will not be able to justify the violence they are using against innocent people in the same way that those who killed Christ and caused him to suffer will not. The heart of what Peter is trying to convey to the church can be found in ch. 2 v. 19-21 — not in v. 13. His command is not obey the government. He is stressing what Paul said and what Jesus commanded on the sermon on the mount - Blessed are the you when they revile you and persecute you and speak evil against you for my name's sake. In fact, v. 23 in 1 Peter ch. 2 is a direct reference to that.

The same problem of misinterpreting the word "submit" is also the reason for a misunderstanding of Peter. As I have said before, the word does not mean to obey, so the assertion that "submit" here is different from the true meaning of "submit" in Romans makes little sense. Peter is telling the church to willingly take part in the persecution that comes their way. Like Romans 13, 1 Peter is not a call to obedience to government. It is a call to follow Christ's footsteps by not resisting suffering for the name of God.
____________________
Nekeisha Alexis-Manners is currently a senior at New York University majoring in African Studies. She is also a web designer (she designed www.jesusradicals.com) and works part-time at a recreational program for the mentally disabled.

Just a thought:
Jesus commended the Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 for having more faith than anyone in Israel and never once asked him to step down from being a soldier. However, Jesus did ask Zacheus to stop being a tax collector and the women at the well to stop committing adultery. It would seem that he would have also asked the Centurion to step down if being a solider is wrong.

Also Paul came in contact with multiple soldiers and even led many to Christ but he never once asked them to stop being soldiers. He also used the solider as an analogy for the Christian life in Ephesians 6:10-19. It would seem that if being a solider is a sin it would be a bad illustration. You would not see any other sinful practices (such as adultery) being used as an illustration for living the Christian life.

• If someone is trying to rape or kill your wife or child is it permissible as a Christian to use force to stop the rapist or murderer?

To me the obvious answer is yes. Then the logical following question would be, in the process of so doing this can a Christian use deadly force to successfully stop deadly force? The answer to me again is yes. From what I understand the old testament law " THOU SHALT NOT KILL" is actually best rendered " THOU SHALL NOT MURDER" . What would you say to the Lord in Heaven when questioned as to why you let someone murder an innocent person," Well Lord I was just trying to glorify you!" I dont think that fits. I believe the instinct we have inside to rightly protect our loved ones or another innocent person comes from a conscience that was put there by our creator and is correct to follow. We do live in a fallen world and until His Kingdom is here in its fulness we have to sometimes do things we know will eventually not be done. So if someone has kicked down your door and chasing your wife around with a butcher knife...yes in my mind the prudent and sensible action is to shoot them. Now if they drop the knife and run away you arent free to shoot them in the back.

Steve