I have some friends who think I’m a cycling fanatic. I used to think so myself but I’ve learned that clearly I’m not. Really.
I have a bike, not a bevy of bikes. The bike I have cost me hundreds, not thousands. I don’t display it in the living room, I store it in the garage. I have supplemented it with a few accessories but I don’t have a warehouse full of gear. I can tell you that it is a, “21 speed,” but I can’t converse about tooth counts or gear ratios. Furthermore, I think and speak in terms of parts rather than components.
Generally speaking, I don’t use the term local bike shop often enough to warrant shortening
it to LBS. I did buy my bike from the
LBS but I don’t consider an LBS to be tourist attractions when I travel. (See what I did there?)
I own a spoke wrench but I don’t own a truing stand. I’ve “met” both Presta and Shrader though I don’t always remember which is which and I certainly can’t debate their relative merits. My concept of maintenance is airing the tires and lubing the chain; beyond that involves a trip to the LBS.
I ride hundreds of miles a year, not hundreds of miles a week. I ride in t-shirts not jerseys and the shorts I wear don’t have bibs or padding. I pass and get passed; I don’t break away or get dropped. I don’t spin or mash, I simply pedal. I’ve been known to complain that a particular hill was steep but I’ve never bemoaned that I had to climb an X percent grade. I’ve ridden in a group but I’ve never been party to an echelon or peloton. I know that a “century” isn’t a hundred years but rather a hundred miles in one day. A century is not something I make a habit of but something to which I aspire.
I fill my water bottles with water, not electrolytes. I eat but I don’t carbo load. Sometimes, I stop and have a snack but I don’t grabenergy gels at feed stations.
Lastly, winterizing my bike means storing it, not adding bar mitts and mounting snow tires! Oh yeah, and I have hobbies besides riding… like writing.
(A “Sermon Echo” is a short reminder or elaboration of something I preached or heard on a previous Sunday.)
This week, it was my co-pastor’s (Pastor Chelsie) turn to preach. She read the story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. It begins like this:
“To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 1The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’–Luke 18:9-12
She elaborated on the Pharisee’s attitude of self-righteousness and how he compared himself to others and felt himself superior to them.
Then she asked, “How many of you are thinking, ‘Thank God, I’m not like that Pharisee!?’
Romans 13:1a says, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities…”
I’ve heard those words used to say that Christians must not oppose or speak against the President of the United States, but rather, must give their support and allegiance (“be subject”) to the President. Is that how this passage applies? I don’t think so; at least not in an absolute way.
What follows is an explanation of my position on how Romans 13:1a should be interpreted in the context of our government, NOT how it may or may not apply to our current President.
First, notice Acts chapter four where Peter and John are commanded by the Sanhedrin (governing authority) to stop teaching and speaking in the name of Jesus. Their response is recorded in verse 19. “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!” In the very next chapter, Peter and the other disciples face the charges again and answer similarly, “We must obey God rather human beings!” The obvious principle is that God’s authority supersedes earthly authorities. That means if a “governing authority” behaves contrary to God and his will, Christians do not owe allegiance to that authority.
Secondly, consider how being “subject to the governing authorities” applies to our particular form of government. It is too simplistic to equate the Biblical phrase, “governing authorities,” with the President. Our governing authority is not the same as when and where the New Testament was written. It is due to careful, purposeful design that our governing authority is not an emperor, dictator, or king. Our governing authority is not a person at all, but rather a Constitution of the people, and by extension, the three-branches of government it established. As Lincoln put it, “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Article II of the Constitution gives executive power to a President. Unlike the case of emperors, dictators, and kings, that executive power is rather narrowly defined. The key part of that definition is the President’s responsibility to, “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (There are also duties like making treaties, receives ambassadors, and serving as the Commander in Chief but his duties do not include making laws or interpreting them.) The Constitution summarizes the President’s role through the oath of office that it sets forth; our President must vow to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
Furthermore, in the United States we believe in a principle called the Rule of Law. Among other things, “the rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges. (Wikipedia)” That means that unlike emperors, dictators and kings, our President is not above the law. Rather, the President is subject to the law just like everyone else.
To conclude, therefore, if our governing authority consists of a Constitution and the three-branches it established and regulates, and if our President exists through, and is subject to, the Constitution and the other two branches, then Romans 13:1a applies to the President only to the extent that the President faithfully executes the office of President. If you believe the President is behaving contrary to God’s will and/or if you believe the President is behaving contrary to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, then you are not obligated to give support and allegiance to that President. (Not only that, but an argument could be made that under such circumstances, Christians actually have a duty to actively oppose that President.)
Romans 13:1a says, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities…”
I’ve heard those words used to say that Christians must not oppose or speak against the President of the United States, but rather, must give their support and allegiance (“be subject”) to the President. Is that how this passage applies? I don’t think so; at least not in an absolute way.
What follows is an explanation of my position on how Romans 13:1a should be interpreted in the context of our government, NOT how it may or may not apply to our current President.
First, notice Acts chapter four where Peter and John are commanded by the Sanhedrin (governing authority) to stop teaching and speaking in the name of Jesus. Their response is recorded in verse 19. “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!” In the very next chapter, Peter and the other disciples face the charges again and answer similarly, “We must obey God rather human beings!” The obvious principle is that God’s authority supersedes earthly authorities. That means if a “governing authority” behaves contrary to God and his will, Christians do not owe allegiance to that authority.
Secondly, consider how being “subject to the governing authorities” applies to our particular form of government. It is too simplistic to equate the Biblical phrase, “governing authorities,” with the President. Our governing authority is not the same as when and where the New Testament was written. It is due to careful, purposeful design that our governing authority is not an emperor, dictator, or king. Our governing authority is not a person at all, but rather a Constitution of the people, and by extension, the three-branches of government it established. As Lincoln put it, “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Article II of the Constitution gives executive power to a President. Unlike the case of emperors, dictators, and kings, that executive power is rather narrowly defined. The key part of that definition is the President’s responsibility to, “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (There are also duties like making treaties, receives ambassadors, and serving as the Commander in Chief but his duties do not include making laws or interpreting them.) The Constitution summarizes the President’s role through the oath of office that it sets forth; our President must vow to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
Furthermore, in the United States we believe in a principle called the Rule of Law. Among other things, “the rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges. (Wikipedia)” That means that unlike emperors, dictators and kings, our President is not above the law. Rather, the President is subject to the law just like everyone else.
To conclude, therefore, if our governing authority consists of a Constitution and the three-branches it established and regulates, and if our President exists through, and is subject to, the Constitution and the other two branches, then Romans 13:1a applies to the President only to the extent that the President faithfully executes the office of President. If you believe the President is behaving contrary to God’s will and/or if you believe the President is behaving contrary to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, then you are not obligated to give support and allegiance to that President. (Not only that, but an argument could be made that under such circumstances, Christians actually have a duty to actively oppose that President.)
Whether you agree or disagree, it’s something to cerebrate.
Our nation was formed in response to tyranny. (See the Declaration of Independence.) We sought ideals like equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Again, see the Declaration of Independence.) In order to secure these ideals “we the people” created and adopted our Constitution. (See the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.)
There are two over-arching principles woven into the fabric of our Constitution that are responsible for our nation’s success in combating tyranny and providing those ideals mentioned above. Those two principles are, “balance/separation of power,” and, “checks and balances.” Our constitutional framers achieved balance of power through our three-branch system: executive, legislative, and judicial. Checks and balances was achieved by assigning to those three branches, oversight and accountability over one another.
Impeachment is a core element of our constitution as a means of oversight and accountability. Specifically with regards to the President, if there are charges of wrongdoing that the House of Representatives believes to be credible, it is their constitutional duty to impeach (charge) the President. When that happens, it then becomes the Senate’s constitutional duty job to try those charges with the Chief Justice serving as judge.
My point here is that these oversight and accountability responsibilities are built into the very fabric of what makes America great. Carrying out these responsibilities is not illegal; carrying out these responsibilities does not constitute treason; carrying out these responsibilities does not constitute a coup d’état; carrying out these responsibilities should not precipitate a civil war like division.
Simply put, one cannot claim to respect (much less preserve, protect, and defend) the Constitution while at the same time opposing this process. Regardless of whether we personally hope for conviction and removal from office or acquittal and exoneration we should embrace the process and let the Constitution do its job.
